<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article"><?xmltex \bartext{Development and technical paper}?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">GMD</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Geoscientific Model Development</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">GMD</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Geosci. Model Dev.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1991-9603</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/gmd-16-135-2023</article-id><title-group><article-title>Climate impacts of parameterizing subgrid variation and partitioning of land
surface heat fluxes to the <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> atmosphere with the NCAR CESM1.2</article-title><alt-title>Parameterizing subgrid variation and partitioning of land surface fluxes</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Parameterizing subgrid variation and partitioning of land surface fluxes}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{M. Yin et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Yin</surname><given-names>Ming</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4186-4011</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Han</surname><given-names>Yilun</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Yong</given-names></name>
          <email>yongw@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>Wenqi</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Deng</surname><given-names>Jianbo</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wei</surname><given-names>Daoming</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Kong</surname><given-names>Ying</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff4 aff5">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Bin</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Earth System Science, Ministry of Education Key
Laboratory for Earth System Modeling,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Institute for Global Change Studies,
Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Hunan Institute of Meteorological Sciences, Changsha, 410118, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>College of Atmospheric Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000,
China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>State Key Laboratory of Numerical Modeling for Atmospheric Sciences
and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100029, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>College of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy
of Sciences, Beijing, 100029, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Yong Wang (yongw@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>4</day><month>January</month><year>2023</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>16</volume>
      <issue>1</issue>
      <fpage>135</fpage><lpage>156</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>24</day><month>April</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>7</day><month>June</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>5</day><month>December</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>5</day><month>December</month><year>2022</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2023 Ming Yin et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2023</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023.html">This article is available from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d1e179">All current global climate models (GCMs) utilize only
grid-averaged surface heat fluxes to drive the atmosphere, and thus their
subgrid horizontal variations and partitioning are absent. This can result
in many simulation biases. To address this shortcoming, a novel
parameterization scheme considering the subgrid variations of the sensible
and latent heat fluxes to the atmosphere and the associated partitioning is
developed and implemented into the National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) Climate Earth System Model 1.2 (CESM1.2). Compared to the default
model, in addition to the improved boreal summer precipitation simulation
over eastern China and the coastal areas of the Bay of Bengal, the
long-standing overestimations of precipitation on the southern and eastern
margins of the Tibetan Plateau (TP) in most GCMs are alleviated. The
improved precipitation simulation on the southern margin of the TP is from
suppressed large-scale precipitation, while that on the eastern edge of the
TP is due to decreased convective precipitation. Moisture advection is
blocked toward the southern edge of the TP, and the anomaly of anticyclonic
moisture transport over northern China extends westward, suppressing local
convection on the eastern edge of the TP. The altered large-scale
circulation in the lower atmosphere resulting from anomalous heating and cooling
in the planetary boundary layer is responsible for the change in moisture
transport. The performance of other key variables (e.g., surface energy
fluxes, clouds and 2 m temperature) is also evaluated thoroughly using the
default CESM1.2, the new scheme and the scheme stochastically allocating
the subgrid surface heat fluxes to the atmosphere (i.e., without subgrid
partitioning included). This study highlights the importance of subgrid
surface energy variations and partitioning to the atmosphere in simulating
the hydrological and energy cycles in GCMs.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e191">The importance of land surface heterogeneity has been identified through
many observational and modeling studies (e.g., Taylor et al., 2007; Lothon
et al., 2011; Rochetin et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017). The variability in
surface heat fluxes caused by the heterogeneity of surface properties is
crucial to turbulence in the planetary boundary layer (PBL), as well as the
evolution of large-scale atmospheric circulation and clouds (Rieck et al.,
2014; Lee et al., 2019). In most global climate models (GCMs), confined by
the horizontal resolution (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100–200 km), the subgrid surface
heat fluxes to the atmosphere are averaged out, thus degrading the
simulation of convection and PBL processes. This is one of the causes of
precipitation simulation biases in GCMs, such as “too much light rain and
too little heavy rain” (e.g., Dai, 2006; O'Brien et al., 2016; Na et al.,
2020; Wang et al., 2021a), unrealistic precipitation evolution over the
Indian summer monsoon region (e.g., Waliser et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2018),
and extremely excessive precipitation over the eastern and southern parts of
the steep Tibetan Plateau (TP) (e.g., Zhou et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e201">The land surface energy balance involves biophysical and biogeochemical
processes (Lee et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2014; Duveiller et al., 2018;
Chakraborty and Lee, 2019; Liu et al., 2022), which are closely related to
surface properties. For instance, forests dissipate sensible heat to the PBL
more efficiently than open landscapes (Rotenberg and Yakir, 2010; Wei et
al., 2021), and the increase in vegetation density has been found to favor
the release of latent heat rather than sensible heat during the past three
and a half decades (Forzieri et al., 2020). The different performance of the
energy terms suggests the potential importance of surface energy
partitioning. However, the grid-scale surface heat fluxes to the atmosphere
are rudimentarily treated by calculating the weighted averages within each
grid cell in all GCMs. This simplified approach inevitably hampers our
understanding of small-scale land–atmosphere feedback, which is among the
critical processes in efforts to project future climate change through GCMs
(Miralles et al., 2019; Forzieri et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e204">To incorporate the subgrid horizontal variations in the surface heat fluxes
to the atmosphere, a recent study (Sun et al., 2021) proposed a
parameterization using stochastic sampling and tested it in the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Climate Earth System Model 1.2
(CESM1.2). It was found that this scheme improved the boreal summer
precipitation simulation over eastern China. However, Sun et al. (2021) did
not comprehensively assess the overall performance of other variables.
Another important limitation is that there is no advance in reducing
excessive summer precipitation on the southern and eastern margins of the
TP, which, is a long-standing issue in GCMs (Mueller and Seneviratne, 2014;
Ma et al., 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e207">In the Sun et al. (2021) scheme, although the subgrid surface heat fluxes to
the atmosphere are parameterized via stochastic sampling and internal
multiple calls of the PBL and convection schemes, the underlying
relationship between the subgrid heat fluxes is neglected. The conversion of
the surface available energy into latent and sensible heat fluxes on a
subgrid scale exerts a strong control on global water and energy cycles
(Pitman, 2003; Tang et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2021b) by regulating
land–atmosphere feedback, especially in regions with complicated land
surface features, such as the TP and its surrounding areas (Pielke,
2001; Findell et al., 2011; Forzieri et al., 2018, 2020). As the next
logical step, in this study, the Sun et al. (2021) parameterization is
updated by taking the partitioning between the subgrid sensible and latent
heat fluxes into account. Given that only the simulated precipitation by the
Sun et al. (2021) scheme was investigated, the performance on the
simulations of other variables such as grid-scale surface energy fluxes,
clouds and 2 m temperature is further evaluated thoroughly along with the
modified parameterization.</p>
      <p id="d1e211">The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly describes the Sun
et al. (2021) parameterization scheme and further modifications, CESM and the
experiments, and the observation and reanalysis datasets. The evaluations of
the two schemes are presented in Sect. 3. The uncertainties are discussed in
Sect. 4, while the conclusions are given in Sect. 5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methodology</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>CESM and subgrid heat flux scheme</title>
      <p id="d1e229">To compare with Sun et al. (2021), the GCM used in this study is NCAR
CESM1.2. The atmospheric component is the Community Atmosphere Model,
version 5 (CAM5). The land model is the Community Land Model, version 4
(CLM4). The spatial land surface heterogeneity in the default CLM4 is
represented as a nested subgrid hierarchy in which the grid cells are
composed of multiple land units, snow and soil columns, and plant functional
types (PFTs) (Oleson et al., 2010). All of the fluxes to and from the
surface, including the heat fluxes, are defined at the PFT level. Since the
subgrid heat fluxes exported to the CAM5 are weighted averages and their
weights depend on the fractional coverage of each PFT within the grid cell,
the subgrid variations in the land surface fluxes are missing during the
land–atmosphere coupling process (Sun et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e232">To consider the influences of the heterogeneity of the subgrid heat fluxes
to the atmosphere in CESM1.2, a parameterization scheme is developed and
implemented in CLM4. This scheme establishes the truncated normal
distributions of the subgrid sensible and latent heat fluxes independently
within the grid cell at each time step. The probability density function
(PDF) of subgrid sensible and latent heat fluxes in a given grid cell is
calculated by
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M2" display="block"><mml:mtable rowspacing="0.2ex" class="split" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">|</mml:mi><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ψ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ψ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="1em"/><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>∈</mml:mo><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is the weighted average value of all subgrid heat fluxes,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the standard deviation, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>min⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the
minima and maxima of the subgrid heat fluxes, respectively, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ψ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are the PDF and the cumulative distribution function (CDF)
of the standard normal distribution, respectively. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e., the maximum
number of PFTs coexisting in the grid cell) samples of sensible and latent
heat fluxes are independently and randomly paired with each other to drive
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> independent groups of the PBL and the deep convection parameterization
schemes in CAM5. The outputs from these <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> calls of the schemes are then
averaged with equal weights as the inputs of the other schemes.</p>
      <p id="d1e453">The stochastic sampling implicitly parameterizes the uncertainties of the
PBL and convection processes to a certain degree. As stated in Sun et al. (2021), the sampled fluxes from a statistical distribution rather than the
fluxes directly from individual PFTs can represent the mix of subgrid fluxes
from mixed land cover types in reality. Moreover, the distribution of the
sampled subgrid surface heat fluxes based on the assumed normal distribution
resembles the distribution of realistic subgrid PFT heat fluxes within the
grid cell in long-term statistics. As shown in Fig. 1, for the sensible heat
flux, over the grid cells with 16 and 8 PFTs, the two distributions are
highly consistent, in terms of mean value, variance and skewness. The latent
heat flux has similar results (not shown). Given that those grid
cells are stochastically selected and cover different climatic regimes (Fig. S1 in the Supplement), the assumed normal distribution works well and thus the sampled samples
can represent the realistic features for climate simulation.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e459">Histograms and Gaussian kernel density estimates (KDEs) (dashed
line) for realistic (green) and sampled (purple) sensible heat fluxes at the
PFT in the eight grid cells with 16 (top row) and 8 (bottom row) PFTs,
respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e468">Note that the closure of the surface energy balance at the grid scale is not
affected by the stochastic sampling method. The surface energy balance is
closed at the grid scale in the default land–atmosphere coupling way.
Therefore, the stochastic sampling at the subgrid scale based on the
truncated normal distributions with mean values equal to the default grid
averages calculated by the weighted fluxes on each PFT within the grid cell
(Fig. 1) can assure that the grid-scale surface energy balance is closed as
well in the long-term statistics, although at a given time step this might
be broken up.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Modified subgrid heat flux scheme</title>
      <p id="d1e479">In the stochastic scheme proposed by Sun et al. (2021), the sampled subgrid
sensible heat and latent heat fluxes are stochastically paired, without
considering the underlying relationship between them. However, we can
compute the correlation coefficients between the subgrid sensible and latent
heat fluxes within each grid cell at every time step (i.e., 30 min) using
the following equation:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M12" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LH</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LH</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of PFTs within a grid cell in the land model, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
is the area percentage of each PFT within the grid cell, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LH</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the subgrid surface sensible and latent heat fluxes of
each PFT, respectively, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are their weighted
averages, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LH</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are their standard
deviations. The correlation coefficients vary with time. Figure 2a shows the
annual mean distribution of the energy partitioning between the sensible
heat and latent heat fluxes at the subgrid scale. There are negative
correlations at low latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) and most of
the Southern Hemisphere (SH), whereas most regions have positive correlations in the middle and high latitudes in
the NH and on the TP. In boreal
summer (June–July–August, JJA) (Fig. 2b), the sensible and latent heat
fluxes in most regions of the world are negatively correlated, except for
the TP, Greenland, the central US and southern Australia (Fig. 2b). In
boreal winter (December–January–February, DJF) (Fig. 2c), the global
distribution is similar to that of the annual mean, showing larger positive
correlation coefficients but smaller negative correlation coefficients.
Positive correlation coefficients in both summer and winter mainly persist
in high latitudes and altitudes. This is because as snow melts in summer the
land surface gains more water for evaporation (i.e., latent heat flux).
Sensible heat flux increases synchronously from enhanced surface net
radiation as a result of increased incoming solar radiation and reduced snow
albedo. In winter, decreased solar radiation and increased snow cover reduce
both sensible and latent heat fluxes.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e673">Spatial distribution of <bold>(a)</bold> annual, <bold>(b)</bold> JJA (June–July–August) and
<bold>(c)</bold> DJF (December–January–February) mean correlation coefficients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between
the subgrid surface sensible and latent heat fluxes in the
EXP_COR simulation.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e698">Here we propose two methods below based on the subgrid surface energy
partitioning between sensible and latent heat fluxes.
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e703">Arrange the randomly selected <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> subgrid sensible heat fluxes and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> subgrid
latent heat fluxes in each grid cell from largest to smallest and
pair them in turn to drive the atmosphere independently. In this case, a large
(small) sensible heat flux corresponds to a large (small) latent heat flux.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e721">Use the same method as (1) but arrange the randomly selected <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> subgrid sensible heat
fluxes from largest to smallest and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> latent heat fluxes from smallest to
largest in each grid cell. In this case, a large (small) subgrid sensible heat
flux corresponds to a small (large) subgrid latent heat flux.</p></list-item></list>
Which one of the above methods is used for a given grid cell depends on the time-varying
correlation coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. If the correlation coefficient <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in the grid cell
is positive, the PBL and convection parameterizations are driven using the
heat fluxes derived in method (1). Otherwise, the heat fluxes selected using
method (2) will be passed to the atmosphere. The arithmetic mean of the
outputs from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> calls of the PBL and the convection parameterizations is
passed into the other following schemes. Given that the surface energy
balance closure at the grid scale is not affected by the stochastic sampling
method, the follow-up collocation of the sampled sensible and latent heat
fluxes according to their correlation coefficient does not break up this
rule. This is because this process just rearranges the sequence of heat
fluxes rather than altering the values.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Experiments</title>
      <p id="d1e768">Three Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP)-type experiments with
a finite-volume dynamical core at a horizontal resolution of 1.9<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and 30 vertical
levels from the surface to 3.6 hPa are conducted using observed
climatological (1982–2001 mean) monthly sea surface temperature and sea ice
extent data (Stone et al., 2018). The control simulation (CTL) uses the
standard CESM1.2, the experimental simulation (EXP) uses the Sun et al. (2021) parameterization in CESM1.2 (also the same as the EXP run in their
study) and the EXP_COR run uses the modifications as
described in Sect. 2.2. All of the simulations were run for 6 years, with
the first year discarded as the spin-up stage. The value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in each grid
cell was fixed to 16, which equals the maximum number of PFTs ever
coexisting on a single column in the land model, although different grid
cells have different numbers of PFTs (Sun et al., 2021). As noted by Sun et
al. (2021), further increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> has negligible impacts on the model
performance compared with setting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to 16 and enhances computational loading
instead.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Observations and reanalyses</title>
      <p id="d1e842">To evaluate the model performance, the simulation results are compared with
the available observation and reanalysis datasets. The Tropical Rainfall
Measuring Mission (TRMM; Huffman et al., 2014) observations (0.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for
Research and Applications version 2 (MERRA-2; Gelaro et al., 2017)
reanalysis (0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.625<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) are used for
precipitation. The other datasets include surface radiative fluxes from the
Clouds and the Earth's Radiation Energy Systems (CERES) Energy Balanced and
Filled (1.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) (EBAF; Loeb et al.,
2012), sensible heat and latent heat fluxes from the Global Land Data
Assimilation System version 2.1 (GLDAS-2.1) Noah monthly data
(1.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Rodell et al., 2004) and 2 m
air temperature from the Climatic Research Unit with a 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
resolution (CRU; Harris et al., 2020). For consistency, all of the
observation and reanalysis datasets are regridded to the same grid size as CAM5.
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
      <p id="d1e966">Sun et al. (2021) found that the improved precipitation simulation with the
parameterization of subgrid surface heat fluxes to the atmosphere is most
prominent for boreal summer. Therefore, to compare with Sun et al. (2021),
the analyses are first focused on boreal summer followed by a thorough
evaluation of the two parameterizations on simulated climate variables for
four seasons at the global scale.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Precipitation</title>
      <p id="d1e976">Sun et al. (2021) (i.e., the EXP run) improved the simulation of summer
precipitation over eastern China and the coastal areas of the Bay of Bengal
(Fig. 3b–d), which is attributed to altered vertical diffusion and
convection. In particular, it still produces excessive precipitation on the
eastern and southern margins of the TP. After taking the subgrid energy
partitioning into account in the EXP_COR run, the overall
performance in terms of the root-mean-square error (RMSE) and the spatial
correlation coefficient (COR) is comparable to that of the EXP run (Fig. 3d and f). The long-standing overestimations of precipitation on the southern
and eastern margins of the TP are alleviated by up to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.5 mm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 3b–f), although the simulated precipitation is still excessive. Over other
regions such as southern China, the Middle East and Indonesia, there are
some slight degradations.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1000">Spatial distributions of JJA (June–July–August) mean precipitation
for <bold>(a)</bold> TRMM; the biases of <bold>(b)</bold> CTL, <bold>(d)</bold> EXP, and <bold>(f)</bold> EXP_COR
with respect to TRMM; and the differences <bold>(c)</bold> between EXP and CTL and <bold>(e)</bold> between EXP_COR and CTL. The crossed areas are significant at
the 95 % level. The spatial correlation coefficient (COR) and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) are given at the top of <bold>(b)</bold>, <bold>(d)</bold> and <bold>(f)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1037">Figure 4 zooms in on the region (20–50<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 75–125<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E)
where the simulated precipitation exhibits obvious improvements in the
EXP_COR run. In the CTL run, the wet bias over the southern
margin of the TP can exceed 11 mm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, while that over the eastern
margin of the TP is approximately 7 mm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. In CMIP5&amp;6 models, the
biases along the TP are much larger than those in the rest of the world
(Fig. 3) (Su et al., 2013; Yu et al., 2015; Zhu and Yang, 2020; Lun et al.,
2021). In contrast, in the EXP_COR run, the reduced biases
over these two regions can be as much as 2.5 mm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> accounting for a
reduction of approximately 25 %, especially over the southern margin of
the TP. Given that there are many causes (e.g., unrealistic water vapor
advection and the absence of subgrid topographic effects) for the severe
overestimation of precipitation along the TP, the improvement in this study,
to some extent, is impressive. The regionally averaged RMSE decreases from
4.51 in the CTL run and 4.07 in the EXP run to 3.71 in the
EXP_COR run, and the COR increases from 0.48 in the CTL run
to 0.60 in both the EXP and EXP_COR runs.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1097">The same as Fig. 3 but focusing on the study area (20–50<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N,
75–125<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E). The regionally averaged spatial COR and RMSE are given
at the top of <bold>(b)</bold>, <bold>(d)</bold> and <bold>(f)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=384.112205pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1133">Total precipitation in the model consists of convective and large-scale
components. Their contributions are analyzed accordingly. Compared with the
EXP run, large-scale precipitation is significantly suppressed on the
southern fringe (Fig. 5a and b), and more large-scale precipitation and
convective precipitation are reduced on the eastern margin in the
EXP_COR run.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1138">Spatial distribution of the differences in <bold>(a, b)</bold> large-scale
precipitation and <bold>(c, d)</bold> convective precipitation between (left) EXP and
CTL and between (right) EXP_COR and CTL and the differences
in <bold>(e–h)</bold> the contributions (moisture convergence <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cnvg</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, moisture
advection <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">advt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, evaporation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and the sum TOT) to total precipitation
between EXP_COR and CTL. The crossed areas are significant at
the 95 % level.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=355.659449pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f05.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1186">A moisture budget analysis widely used in previous studies (Gao et al.,
2017; Wang et al., 2016) is conducted to examine the causes of precipitation
changes. Following Sun et al. (2021), the atmospheric water vapor budget
equation is given below:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M62" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>W</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">V</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">V</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∇</mml:mi><mml:mi>W</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is precipitation and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is evaporation. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi>W</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the column-integrated
moisture given by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">top</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bot</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, in which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mi>q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the specific
humidity, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">top</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bot</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the top and surface pressures,
respectively, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the acceleration due to gravity. The vector <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
(with units of m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), given by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∫</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">top</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">bot</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>g</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, represents the total horizontal moisture transport
normalized to the column-integrated moisture, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">u</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
horizontal wind vector. The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (3) is
the moisture convergence <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cnvg</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the second term is the moisture
advection <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">advt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The tendency of the term <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>W</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:math></inline-formula> on the left-hand side of Eq. (3) is negligible for seasonal averages of
multiple years.</p>
      <p id="d1e1445">Compared with the CTL run, moisture convergence weakens on the eastern edge
of the TP, while moisture advection increases in the EXP_COR
run (Fig. 5e and f). On the southern edge of the TP, moisture advection
decreases, and moisture convergence slightly increases. Overall, consistent
with the change in total precipitation, the total water vapor contributions
decrease on the eastern and southern edges of the TP (Fig. 5h). We note that
the spatial pattern of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cnvg</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> changes in the EXP_COR run
relative to the CTL run and resembles that in the EXP run (Fig. 4d and f in Sun
et al., 2021), which is linked with the changes in the heating rate due to
vertical diffusion in the PBL caused by the subgrid variations in land
surface heat fluxes. In comparison with the EXP run, the negative moisture
convergence anomaly is further aggravated, and the positive bias of moisture
advection on the eastern margin of the TP is smaller (Sun et al., 2021). The
negative maximum of the total contribution thus shifts westward to the
eastern margin of the TP. Overall, moisture convergence dominates the change
in precipitation on the eastern border of the TP (Fig. 5e and h). On the
southern edge of the TP, the main term contributing to precipitation changes
is the reduced moisture advection (Fig. 5f and h).</p>
      <p id="d1e1460">The causes of the altered moisture convergence and advection are illustrated
in Figs. 6 and S2, where the MERRA-2 reanalysis is included for reference. In
the EXP run, the subgrid variations of the land surface heat fluxes increase
(decrease) PBL heating over southern (northern) China (Fig. 6a). With the
partitioning of subgrid surface heat fluxes included, the increase
(decrease) in the heating rate over southern (northern) China is
strengthened (Fig. 6b). Therefore, destabilization (stabilization) in the
lower atmosphere is further enhanced, promoting (suppressing) local
convection. Lower (higher) sea level pressure (SLP) anomalies over southern
(northern) China are generated in the EXP_COR run than in the
EXP run. In particular, compared with the EXP run, the anomalous high SLP
over northern China extends further to the south and to the eastern
border of the TP, with the anomalous low SLP over southern China retreating
(Fig. 6d–h). The anomalous anticyclonic moisture transport associated with
downdraft expands accordingly, which engenders decreased precipitation on
the eastern border of the TP and slight dry biases over southern China.
Similar to the EXP run, convective precipitation dominates the changes in
total precipitation over eastern China and the eastern margin of the TP in
the EXP_COR run. In the EXP run, negative SLP anomalies
appear along the Bay of Bengal, leading to cyclonic moisture transport from
the ocean in the south (Fig. 6e). As a result, excessive moisture is
transported to the southern edge of the TP producing overestimated rainfall
there. In contrast, in the EXP_COR run (Fig. 6g), the
easterly anomaly along 25–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N partly blocks
moisture transport from the ocean in the south to the southern margin of the
TP, and hence the decrease in large-scale precipitation plays a first-order
role on the southern margin of the TP.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1474">Spatial distributions of the differences of JJA-mean PBL heating
<bold>(a)</bold> between EXP and CTL and <bold>(b)</bold> between EXP_COR and CTL; SLP
superposed by the vector <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from <bold>(c)</bold> MERRA-2; and the differences <bold>(d)</bold> between CTL and MERRA-2, <bold>(e)</bold> between EXP and CTL, <bold>(f)</bold> between EXP and
MERRA2, <bold>(g)</bold> between EXP_COR and CTL, and <bold>(h)</bold> between
EXP_COR and MERRA2. The vector <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="bold-italic">V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is defined in Eq. (3).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f06.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1524">Spatial distributions of the JJA-mean latent heat flux in <bold>(a)</bold> GLDAS (upward positive); the biases of <bold>(b)</bold> CTL, <bold>(c)</bold> EXP, and <bold>(d)</bold> EXP_COR with respect to GLDAS; and the differences between
<bold>(e)</bold> EXP and CTL and between <bold>(f)</bold> EXP_COR and CTL. The crossed
areas are significant at the 95 % level. The averaged spatial COR and RMSE values
for the three simulations are given in <bold>(b)</bold>–<bold>(d)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f07.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Surface heat fluxes, clouds and 2\,m air temperature}?><title>Surface heat fluxes, clouds and 2 m air temperature</title>
      <p id="d1e1567">The above analysis indicates that the precipitation simulation is improved
through the adjustment of large-scale atmospheric circulation in the lower
atmosphere, which is highly linked with grid-scale surface heating or cooling
(Sun et al., 2021). The following analyses will evaluate the performance of
other variables such as surface energy budgets, clouds and 2 m air
temperature in JJA globally.</p>
      <p id="d1e1570">The evaluations of the latent heat flux simulation are shown in Fig. 7. In
those regions with large latent heat fluxes in GLDAS (e.g., the eastern US,
northern South America, eastern China), the simulated values are
generally underestimated in the CTL run, while in the regions with
relatively small latent fluxes (e.g., the Arabian Peninsula, the Sahara and the northwestern TP), CTL tends to overestimate values.
Overall, the three simulations have similar distributions and comparable
CORs. This is probably because the low accuracy of land cover data in CLM is
the major culprit for those biases (Liu et al., 2021). In the regions with
small correlation coefficients <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mi>r</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (Australia, the Arabian Peninsula, the
Sahara Desert) (Fig. 2a), there are no improvements noticed in the
EXP_COR run even with the simulation degraded.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1582">Spatial distributions of the JJA-mean sensible heat flux in <bold>(a)</bold> GLDAS (upward positive); the biases of <bold>(b)</bold> CTL, <bold>(c)</bold> EXP, and <bold>(d)</bold> EXP_COR with respect to GLDAS; and the differences between
<bold>(e)</bold> EXP and CTL and between <bold>(f)</bold> EXP_COR and CTL. The crossed
areas are significant at the 95 % level. The averaged spatial COR and RMSE
values for the three simulations are given in <bold>(b)</bold>–<bold>(d)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f08.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1617">For the sensible heat flux simulation (Fig. 8) over those regions
with large and small values in GLDAS, the CTL run underestimates and
overestimates them, respectively. Similar to latent heat fluxes, the three
experiments resemble each other, except that EXP_COR further
alleviates the overestimation along 45–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N over the
Eurasian continent where sensible heat fluxes and latent heat fluxes are
highly correlated (Fig. 2b). The positive changes over the southern and
eastern margins of the TP in the EXP_COR run are more
significant than those in the EXP run (Fig. 8e and f). Nonetheless, we note
some degradations from EXP to EXP_COR (e.g., over southern
China).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e1631">Spatial distributions of JJA-mean <bold>(a–c)</bold> low, <bold>(d–f)</bold> middle and
<bold>(g–i)</bold> high clouds in <bold>(a, d, g)</bold> the CTL run and their differences <bold>(b, e, h)</bold> between EXP and CTL and <bold>(c, f, i)</bold> between EXP_COR
and CTL. The crossed areas are significant at the 95 % level.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f09.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1659">As indicated in Sect. 3.1, large-scale atmospheric circulation in the lower
atmosphere and local convection are altered as PBL heating changes, which
affects clouds as well. The changes in clouds in turn influence surface
radiation and thus surface heat fluxes. The cloud properties affecting cloud
radiative effects include their macrostructures (e.g., fraction, top and
base heights, and vertical overlap) and microphysical properties (e.g.,
particle size distribution and geometric configuration, cloud phase, and
water condensation). As shown in Fig. 9c, the EXP_COR run
reduces low clouds over northern China and southeastern Russia and
increases them over southern China and along 45–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N
in comparison with the CTL run. The EXP run has a similar pattern of changes
but with smaller magnitudes compared with the EXP_COR run
(Fig. 9a–c). Low clouds reflect a large amount of incoming solar radiation
and emit longwave radiation at relatively high temperatures, so they exert
an overall net cooling effect on the Earth (Klein and Hartmann, 1993;
Hartmann, 1994). Compared with the CTL run, the middle and high clouds on
the TP are dramatically decreased in the EXP_COR run.
Especially for high clouds, the decrease in the EXP_COR run
is much larger than that in the EXP run.</p>
      <p id="d1e1671">The simulations of the total cloud water path (vertically integrated cloud
liquid and ice water content, CWP) are shown in Fig. 10d–f. A higher cloud
water content reflects more solar radiation. The EXP run increases the total
CWP over southern China and along the Bay of Bengal. Northern China, the TP
and southeastern Russia feature CWP decreases. In the EXP_COR
run, the simulated CWP is further decreased on the TP and over northern
China, while it is increased in southern China and along 45–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, especially over the Eurasian continent. The spatial
distribution of the total ice water path (IWP) changes resembles that of the
total CWP changes (Fig. 10g–i).</p>
      <p id="d1e1683">Generally, the radiative effect of clouds is quantified by cloud radiative
forcing (CRF) (the difference in the surface net flux between all-sky and
clear-sky conditions). It includes shortwave cloud forcing (SWCF) and
longwave cloud forcing (LWCF). Realistic simulation of the CRF is another
important measure of the performance of climate models (Sun et al., 2016).
SWCF is negative, and a smaller value indicates a stronger reflection of
solar shortwave radiation. The strengthened SWCF over the central US, the
Eurasian continent along 45–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and southern China
in EXP_COR (Fig. 10c) originates from the increased cloud
water (Fig. 10f) and low clouds (Fig. 9c). Similarly, the decreased SWCF
over northern China, the TP and southeastern Russia is due to their
reductions. LWCF is positive, and a larger value means a stronger warming
effect on the land surface. The LWCF increases over southern China and
decreases over northern China in EXP_COR (figure not shown).
The distribution of the net CRF (figure not shown) resembles that of the
SWCF, which implies that the SWCF changes dominate the CRF variations.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e1698">The same as Fig. 9 but for <bold>(a–c)</bold> shortwave cloud radiative forcing
(W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <bold>(d–f)</bold> total cloud water path (g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
<bold>(h–k)</bold> ice water path (g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f10.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1753">The simulation of the net surface shortwave flux is demonstrated in Fig. 11.
Globally, the RMSE and COR values are similar to each other in the three
simulations. In the EXP_COR run, the underestimation over the
TP in both the CTL and EXP runs is alleviated, although it slightly degrades
the simulation over eastern China. The negative biases over southeastern
Russia in EXP_COR are also larger than those in EXP. The
changes in the net surface shortwave flux (Fig. 11e and f) are very
consistent with those in SWCF (Fig. 10b and c) implying that the net surface
radiation fluxes are mainly controlled by the shortwave radiation reflected
by the adjustment of clouds as a result of the altered PBL heating rates and
the associated changes in local convection.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e1758">Spatial distributions of the JJA-mean net surface shortwave flux
in <bold>(a)</bold> CERES-EBAF (downward positive); the biases of <bold>(b)</bold> CTL, <bold>(c)</bold> EXP, and
<bold>(d)</bold> EXP_COR with respect to CERES-EBAF; and the differences
<bold>(e)</bold> between EXP and CTL and <bold>(f)</bold> between EXP_COR and CTL. The
crossed areas are significant at the 95 % level. The averaged spatial COR
and RMSE values for the three simulations are given in <bold>(b)</bold>–<bold>(d)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f11.jpg"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1792">In response to the adjustment of the surface energy budget, the global
distributions of JJA mean 2 m air temperature from CRU and the difference
between the observations and the three experiments are shown in Fig. 12. The
three simulations have comparable CORs and RMSEs globally. Compared with the
CTL run, the EXP run alleviates the overestimations in the middle and high
latitudes, although the performance over central Africa and northern South
America is slightly degraded (Fig. 12b, c and e). In the EXP_COR run, the overestimations over the central US and the Eurasian continent
are further alleviated, while the negative biases over central Africa and
the positive biases over southern South America are worsened (Fig. 12b,
d and f). The simulated 2 m air temperature over northern China and the TP
is increased, reintroducing some positive biases. In short, in the
EXP_COR run the decreased net surface shortwave flux
associated with the increases in low clouds and cloud water content over
southern China, over the central US, over the Eurasian continent along
45–60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and along the Bay of Bengal might
contribute to local cooling, while the warming over the TP and northern
China is attributed to the opposite changes accordingly (Figs. 9–11).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e1806">Spatial distributions of the JJA-mean 2 m temperature in <bold>(a)</bold> CRU,
the biases of <bold>(b)</bold> CTL, <bold>(c)</bold> EXP and <bold>(d)</bold> EXP_COR with respect
to CRU. The differences <bold>(e)</bold> between EXP and CTL and <bold>(f)</bold> between
EXP_COR and CTL are also shown. The crossed areas are significant at the
95 % level. The averaged spatial COR and RMSE values for the three simulations
are given in <bold>(b)</bold>–<bold>(d)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f12.jpg"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Mean states</title>
      <p id="d1e1848">The analyses presented above demonstrate that the introduction of the
subgrid heat flux schemes (EXP and EXP_COR) improves the simulations of summer precipitation in eastern
China in EXP and additional TP regions in EXP_COR compared to the
default model. The
improvements and degradations in simulated surface heat fluxes, cloud
properties and 2 m air temperature in boreal summer at the global scale are
also discussed. The precipitation improvements over eastern China are mainly
from the consideration of subgrid variations in surface heat fluxes (i.e.,
the EXP run where the sampled subgrid sensible and latent heat fluxes are
stochastically paired with each other), while the improved precipitation
simulations on the southern and eastern margins of the TP are attributed to
the further inclusion of the partitioning of the subgrid surface heat fluxes
(the EXP_COR run). A thorough evaluation of the global annual
and seasonal means of those variables is necessary because from the
perspective of climate model development, the incorporation of a new
parameterization scheme to improve some aspects should not obviously cause
the degradation of other aspects (Wang et al., 2021b). As presented in Table 1 (global distributions shown in Figs. S3–S9), the overall simulation
statistics of the EXP and EXP_COR runs are comparable to
those of the CTL run, although they are slightly different in some seasons. When
focusing on East Asia (Table S1 in the Supplement), the new schemes outperform the default
scheme, implying the importance of parameterizing the subgrid land surface
heat fluxes to the atmosphere in GCMs in regions with complex terrain (e.g.,
the TP) and multiple surface types (e.g., eastern China).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1854">The COR and RMSE values in the CTL, EXP and EXP_COR
runs. MAM is for March–April–May, JJA is for June–July–August, SON is for
September–October–November, and DJF is for December–January–February. The best
performance among the three experiments is highlighted in bold.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variables</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Period</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col3" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">COR </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col8" align="center">RMSE </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">CTL</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">EXP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">EXP_COR</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">CTL</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">EXP</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">EXP_COR</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Precipitation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MAM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.82</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.82</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.81</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>1.55</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>1.55</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.61</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">JJA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.80</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>2.03</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.04</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SON</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>1.52</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.53</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">DJF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.85</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>1.62</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.65</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.73</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Annual</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.86</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.86</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.86</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>1.27</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1.30</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2 m temperature</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MAM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">2.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><bold>2.49</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">JJA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.95</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.95</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.95</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>2.66</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2.67</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SON</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">19.94</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><bold>2.61</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">DJF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>3.76</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">3.80</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Annual</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5.86</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><bold>2.42</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sensible heat flux</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MAM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.67</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.65</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.65</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>34.08</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">34.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">34.43</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">JJA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.55</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.56</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>0.56</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">30.67</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>30.57</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">30.89</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SON</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.86</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.86</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.86</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>23.40</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">25.79</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">23.92</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">DJF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.88</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.87</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.87</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>23.71</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">24.42</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">24.42</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Annual</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.74</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>22.71</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">23.72</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">23.28</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Latent heat flux</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MAM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.89</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>15.84</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">16.37</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">16.23</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">JJA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.82</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.82</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.81</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">24.24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>23.18</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">23.40</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SON</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">17.34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">17.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><bold>17.33</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">DJF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.92</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.91</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>15.99</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">16.93</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">16.44</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Annual</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.90</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>13.92</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14.17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">14.15</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Net surface shortwave flux</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MAM</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>0.92</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.91</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.91</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>21.89</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">23.20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">23.47</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">JJA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>29.75</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">29.84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">30.21</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SON</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>20.35</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">26.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">21.10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">DJF</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.96</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>0.97</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>24.28</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">24.51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">24.32</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Annual</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.93</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.93</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.93</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>19.35</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">21.04</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">20.05</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2651">The zonal means of temperature and specific humidity from the European
Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ERA-Interim reanalysis
dataset and the model biases are shown in Fig. 13. In the CTL run, the
temperature is overestimated at lower levels in the tropics and midlatitudes
in the SH, whereas it is underestimated at higher levels in other latitudes
(Fig. 13a). The EXP run reverses the positive biases to negative biases with
an excessive reduction at lower levels, and the negative biases at higher
altitudes are further exacerbated (Figs. 13b and S10b). In contrast, the
biases in the EXP_COR run are comparable to those in the CTL
run (Fig. 13a and c). The low-latitude overestimations in the lower
troposphere and the high-latitude underestimations across the troposphere
are alleviated (Fig. S10c). In the simulation of specific humidity, the main positive biases occur in the low latitudes and
midlatitudes below 400 hPa. For the midlatitudes, there are negative biases
in the lower troposphere (Fig. 13d). In general, there are no significant
differences among the three simulations (Fig. 13d–f). In the EXP run, the
positive biases in the lower and middle troposphere are alleviated (Fig. S10e). In contrast, the EXP_COR run is similar to the CTL
run, with negligible differences (Fig. S10f). In summary, the performance of
the mean state simulations does not change significantly when using the two
modified schemes (the EXP and EXP_COR runs).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e2657">Annual and zonal mean cross sections of the <bold>(a–c)</bold> temperature
and <bold>(d–f)</bold> specific humidity differences for <bold>(a, d)</bold> CTL-ERAI, <bold>(b, e)</bold> EXP-ERAI and <bold>(c, f)</bold> EXP_COR-ERAI.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e2690">Despite the uncertainties in the observations, the overestimated rainfall on
the southern and eastern margins of the Tibetan Plateau in the GCMs is
widely acknowledged when comparing multisource observations (Mehran et al.,
2014; Yu et al., 2015). The uncertainties for the evaluations of other
modeled variables are discussed below. The CERES-EBAF datasets provide
long-term global Earth radiation budget records from the surface to the top
of the atmosphere (TOA) together with the associated cloud and aerosol
properties. Extensive validation has been conducted for both TOA and surface
radiation in CERES-EBAF using TOA consistency tests and direct comparisons
of surface fluxes with ground-based measurements over both land and ocean
(Loeb et al., 2007, 2012). Although some weaknesses are noted
(e.g., LW cloud radiative effects at the surface on the TP are overestimated
due to poor sampling of clear sky scenes during the night), they are widely
used for climate model evaluations (Loeb et al., 2018; Hinkelman,
2019), and this flaw does not affect the conclusions in this study. For
surface sensible and latent heat fluxes, there are few observations covering
the whole TP. Instead, among various reanalysis datasets, GLDAS has been
evaluated and investigated extensively (Novick et al., 2018; Sun et al.,
2018; Laloyaux et al., 2016). For instance, Jiménez et al. (2011)
conducted a global intercomparison of monthly mean land surface heat flux
products, including space-based observations and reanalyses including GLDAS.
They demonstrated that the spatial distributions related to the major
climatic regimes and geographical features are well reproduced by GLDAS.
With comprehensive validations, the GLDAS product has been widely used in
evaluating model-based studies (Saha et al., 2014; Xia et al., 2019), such as
water resource management (Zaitchik et al., 2010) and drought monitoring
and prediction (Hao et al., 2016). The CRU gridded dataset for 2 m air
temperature has undergone a series of technical validations, such as quality
control of input data, comparisons between versions and with alternative
datasets, and cross-validation of the interpolated anomalies (Osborn et al.,
2017; Harris et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e2693">In addition to subgrid variation and partitioning of surface heat fluxes,
other factors can impact the precipitation simulation on the TP as well. For
instance, subgrid topographic effects have large effects on latent heat and
sensible heat fluxes. Parameterizing them in GCMs influences the simulated
surface energy balance, boundary conditions and precipitation on
the TP (Lee et al., 2019; Hao et al., 2021, 2022). Alternatively, the
accurate representation of land cover types and soil properties is vital to
the realistic simulation of surface radiative fluxes and heat fluxes and thus TP
rainfall (Liu et al., 2021; Yue et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e2696">With 208 CPU cores in total for each simulation, the total run time per step
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.50 s) in the EXP_COR run is almost twice
that in the CTL run (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.26 s) as a result of calling the
PBL and convective parameterizations 16 times and the resulting extra
communication cost (Table S2). However, compared with the additional
computational costs of the four-mode version of the Modal Aerosol Module
(MAM4) updated from MAM3 and the Cloud Layers Unified by Binormals (CLUBB)
scheme, instead of the CAM5 boundary layer turbulence, shallow convection,
and cloud macrophysics schemes, respectively, in CESM2 (CESM version 2), the
increased computational cost in EXP_COR relative to CTL is
much smaller and thus acceptable. Given the heavy computational cost of
CLUBB, this could be challenging for computational efficiency if using this
scheme in CESM2. Therefore, further improvements are needed. For example,
according to the number of PFTs in each grid cell, the number of multiple
calls (up to 16) of the CLUBB can be varied in different grid cells.
Alternatively, this can be done only when the number of PFTs is larger than a
threshold. In the meantime, parallel optimization should be applied to
multiple calls.</p>
      <p id="d1e2713">The GCM used to test the schemes is CESM1.2, in which the land model is
CLM4. Similar to CLM4, CLM5 (CLM version 5) in CESM2 and other land surface
models in the GCMs use the PFT structure as well. Additionally, the
parameterization of subgrid heat fluxes proposed in this study is not
dependent on the specific parameterizations of the PBL and convection
processes. Therefore, it is conveniently applied to other GCMs.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{14}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 14</label><caption><p id="d1e2719">Schematic diagram summarizing the climate impacts of
parameterizing subgrid variations and partitioning of land surface heat
fluxes to the atmosphere.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/16/135/2023/gmd-16-135-2023-f14.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e2737">In this study, a parameterization of the subgrid variations and partitioning
of the land surface heat fluxes to the atmosphere was developed and
implemented in the NCAR CESM1.2. The modification to the Sun et al. (2021)
scheme is based on the fact that energy redistribution between the land
surface and the PBL plays an essential role in global and regional energy
cycles (Liu et al., 2014; Chakraborty and Lee, 2019; Wei et al., 2021).
Three experiments were conducted to evaluate the updated scheme (CTL, EXP
and EXP_COR). The precipitation improvements over eastern
China using the original scheme (EXP) are retained in the new scheme
(EXP_COR), although slight dry biases are reintroduced over
southern China. In addition, the stubborn overestimations of precipitation
on the southern and eastern margins of the TP are alleviated.</p>
      <p id="d1e2740">The causes are briefly summarized in Fig. 14a. The subgrid variations of the
land surface heat fluxes increase (decrease) PBL heating over southern
(northern) China. With the further introduction of the partitioning of
subgrid surface heat fluxes, the increase (decrease) in PBL heating over
southern (northern) China is elevated, thus destabilizing (stabilizing) the
lower atmosphere. As a result, local convection is promoted (suppressed)
over southern (northern) China. The changes in convective precipitation
dominate the changes in total precipitation over eastern China and the
eastern margin of the TP. The altered large-scale circulation associated
with the easterly anomaly along 25–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N partly
blocks moisture transport from the ocean in the south to the southern margin
of the TP. Accordingly, the decrease in large-scale precipitation is
responsible for the reduced precipitation there.</p>
      <p id="d1e2752">The links among clouds, net surface shortwave flux and 2 m air temperature
over eastern China are shown in Fig. 14b. As PBL heating decreases in
northern China, the lower atmosphere stabilizes and local convection is
suppressed. Accordingly, middle and high clouds and the associated CWP
decrease (Figs. 9 and 10). Thus, SWCF decreases over northern China, which
increases the net surface shortwave flux. As the surface gains more energy,
the near-surface air temperature warms. In contrast, southern China features
the opposite changes.</p>
      <p id="d1e2755">The Sun et al. (2021) scheme offers a novel method of parametrizing the
subgrid heterogeneity of surface heat fluxes to the atmosphere in GCMs. As a
further modification, the significance of the correlation coefficients
between the subgrid-scale sensible and latent heat fluxes is considered for
a more realistic interpretation of the energy exchange processes. The
findings of these two studies highlight the importance of the energy
variation and redistribution between the land surface and the lower
atmosphere at the subgrid scale.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2762">The CESM1.2.1–CAM5.3 source code can be downloaded through the official CESM
website
<uri>https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.2/cesm/doc/usersguide/x290.html#download_ccsm_code</uri> (CESM Soft Engineering Group, 2022). The modified CESM code and the CAM5 output
for all simulations in the study are both provided in an open repository on Zenodo
(<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6606418" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.6606418</ext-link>, Yin et al., 2022). The TRMM data are
available from <uri>https://gpm.nasa.gov/data/directory</uri> (Huffman et al., 2014). The MERRA-2 data files
are available from
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/2E096JV59PK7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/2E096JV59PK7</ext-link> (GMAO, 2015a) and
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/0JRLVL8YV2Y4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/0JRLVL8YV2Y4</ext-link> (GMAO, 2015b).
The CERES EBAF data are available from
<ext-link xlink:href="https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/ceres-ebaf-clouds-and-earths-radiant-energy-systems-ceres-energy-balanced-and-filled">https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/ceres-ebaf-clouds-and-earths-radiant-energy-systems-ceres-energy-balanced-and-filled</ext-link> (Loeb et al., 2012).
The GLDAS-2.1 data are available from
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/LWTYSMP3VM5Z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/LWTYSMP3VM5Z</ext-link> (Beaudoing et al., 2020). The CRU
data are available from
<uri>https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/?_ga=2.162163900.162961233.1636977076-620633058.1635581908</uri> (Harris et al., 2020).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e2790">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-135-2023-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-135-2023-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2799">YW conceived the idea. WS developed the model code. WS and YH conducted the
model simulations. MY and YW performed the analysis. MY and YW interpreted
the results and wrote the paper. MY, YW and YH revised the manuscript. All
authors participated in the discussion of the paper.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2805">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e2811">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2817">Yong Wang is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 41975126), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant no. 2022YFF0802002), and the Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research
Program (grant no. 20223080041). We thank the two reviewers for their comments, which
significantly improved the quality of the paper.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e2822">This research has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 41975126), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant no. 2022YFF0802002), and the Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program (grant no. 20223080041).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2828">This paper was edited by David Lawrence and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Beaudoing, H.,   Rodell, M., and NASA/GSFC/HSL:  GLDAS Noah Land Surface Model L4 monthly 1.0 x 1.0 degree V2.1, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) [data set],  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/LWTYSMP3VM5Z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/LWTYSMP3VM5Z</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>CESM Software Engineering Group: CESM User’s Guide (CESM1.2 Release Series User’s Guide), <uri>https://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.2/cesm/doc/usersguide/x290.html#download_ccsm_code</uri>, last access: 21 December 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chakraborty, T. and Lee, X.: Land Cover Regulates the Spatial Variability of
Temperature Response to the Direct Radiative Effect of Aerosols, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 46, 8995–9003, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl083812" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019gl083812</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dai, A.: Precipitation Characteristics in Eighteen Coupled Climate Models,
J. Climate, 19, 4605–4630, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3884.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI3884.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Duveiller, G., Forzieri, G., Robertson, E., Li, W., Georgievski, G., Lawrence, P., Wiltshire, A., Ciais, P., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Arneth, A., and Cescatti, A.: Biophysics and vegetation cover change: a process-based evaluation framework for confronting land surface models with satellite observations, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 1265–1279, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1265-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-10-1265-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Findell, K. L., Gentine, P., Lintner, B. R., and Kerr, C.: Probability of
afternoon precipitation in eastern United States and Mexico enhanced by high
evaporation, Nat. Geosci., 4, 434–439, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1174" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo1174</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Forzieri, G., Duveiller, G., Georgievski, G., Li, W., Robertson, E., Kautz,
M., Lawrence, P., Garcia San Martin, L., Anthoni, P., Ciais, P., Pongratz,
J., Sitch, S., Wiltshire, A., Arneth, A., and Cescatti, A.: Evaluating the
Interplay Between Biophysical Processes and Leaf Area Changes in Land
Surface Models, J. Adv. Model Earth Sy., 10, 1102–1126,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2018MS001284" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2018MS001284</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Forzieri, G., Miralles, D. G., Ciais, P., Alkama, R., Ryu, Y., Duveiller,
G., Zhang, K., Robertson, E., Kautz, M., Martens, B., Jiang, C., Arneth, A.,
Georgievski, G., Li, W., Ceccherini, G., Anthoni, P., Lawrence, P.,
Wiltshire, A., Pongratz, J., Piao, S., Sitch, S., Goll, D. S., Arora, V. K.,
Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Kato, E., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Tian, H.,
Friedlingstein, P., and Cescatti, A.: Increased control of vegetation on
global terrestrial energy fluxes, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 356–362,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0717-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41558-020-0717-0</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gao, Y., Leung, L. R., Zhao, C., and Hagos, S.: Sensitivity of U.S. summer
precipitation to model resolution and convective parameterizations across
gray zone resolutions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 2714–2733,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jd025896" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016jd025896</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suarez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs, L.,
Randles, C., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan, K., Coy,
L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A., da
Silva, A., Gu, W., Kim, G. K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D.,
Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putman, W., Rienecker, M.,
Schubert, S. D., Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The Modern-Era Retrospective
Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate, 30,
5419–5454, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO): MERRA-2 instM_3d_asm_Np: 3d,Monthly mean,Instantaneous,Pressure-Level,Assimilation,Assimilated Meteorological Fields V5.12.4, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/2E096JV59PK7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/2E096JV59PK7</ext-link>, 2015a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO):  MERRA-2 tavgM_2d_flx_Nx: 2d,Monthly mean,Time-Averaged,Single-Level,Assimilation,Surface Flux Diagnostics V5.12.4, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) [data set],  <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/0JRLVL8YV2Y4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/0JRLVL8YV2Y4</ext-link>, 2015b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hao, D., Bisht, G., Gu, Y., Lee, W.-L., Liou, K.-N., and Leung, L. R.: A parameterization of sub-grid topographical effects on solar radiation in the E3SM Land Model (version 1.0): implementation and evaluation over the Tibetan Plateau, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6273–6289, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6273-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-14-6273-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hao, D., Bisht, G., Huang, M., Ma, P. L., Tesfa, T., Lee, W. L., Gu, Y., and
Leung, L. R.: Impacts of Sub-Grid Topographic Representations on Surface
Energy Balance and Boundary Conditions in the E3SM Land Model: A Case Study
in Sierra Nevada, J. Adv. Model Earth Sy., 14, 4, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ms002862" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2021ms002862</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hao, Z., Hao, F., Xia, Y., Singh, V. P., Hong, Y., Shen, X., and Ouyang, W.:
A Statistical Method for Categorical Drought Prediction Based on NLDAS-2, J.
Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 55, 1049–1061, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-15-0200.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jamc-d-15-0200.1</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P., and Lister, D.: Version 4 of the CRU
TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset, Sci. Data,
7, 109, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Hartmann, D. L.: Global Physical Climatology, Academic Press, San Diego, America, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hinkelman, L. M.: The Global Radiative Energy Budget in MERRA and MERRA-2:
Evaluation with Respect to CERES EBAF Data, J. Climate, 32, 1973–1994,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-18-0445.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jcli-d-18-0445.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Huffman, G. J., Dan, B., Bolvin, A., Hsu, K., Joyce, R., and Xie, P.: Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG), version 4.4. NASA's Precipitation Processing Center, <uri>ftp://arthurhou.pps.eosdis.nasa.gov/gpmdata/</uri> (last access: 21 December 2022), 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jiménez, C., Prigent, C., Mueller, B., Seneviratne, S. I., McCabe, M.
F., Wood, E. F., Rossow, W. B., Balsamo, G., Betts, A. K., Dirmeyer, P. A.,
Fisher, J. B., Jung, M., Kanamitsu, M., Reichle, R. H., Reichstein, M.,
Rodell, M., Sheffield, J., Tu, K., and Wang, K.: Global intercomparison of
12 land surface heat flux estimates, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D02102,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010jd014545" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010jd014545</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Klein, S. A. and Hartmann, D. L.: The Seasonal Cycle of Low Stratiform
Clouds, J. Climate, 6, 1587–1606, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006&lt;1587:TSCOLS&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006&lt;1587:TSCOLS&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Laloyaux, P., Balmaseda, M., Dee, D., Mogensen, K., and Janssen, P.: A
coupled data assimilation system for climate reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 142, 65–78, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2629" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2629</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lee, J. M., Zhang, Y., and Klein, S. A.: The effect of land surface
heterogeneity and background wind on shallow cumulus clouds and the
transition to deeper convection, J. Atmos. Sci., 76, 401–419,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0196.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-18-0196.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lee, W. L., Liou, K. N., Wang, C. c., Gu, Y., Hsu, H. H., and Li, J. L. F.:
Impact of 3-D Radiation-Topography Interactions on Surface Temperature and
Energy Budget Over the Tibetan Plateau in Winter, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
124, 1537–1549, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd029592" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018jd029592</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lee, X., Goulden, M. L., Hollinger, D. Y., Barr, A., Black, T. A., Bohrer,
G., Bracho, R., Drake, B., Goldstein, A., Gu, L., Katul, G., Kolb, T., Law,
B. E., Margolis, H., Meyers, T., Monson, R., Munger, W., Oren, R., Paw, U.
K., Richardson, A. D., Schmid, H. P., Staebler, R., Wofsy, S., and Zhao, L.:
Observed increase in local cooling effect of deforestation at higher
latitudes, Nature, 479, 384–387, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10588" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature10588</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, S., Chen, M., and Zhuang, Q.: Aerosol effects on global land surface
energy fluxes during 2003–2010, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 7875–7881,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl061640" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014gl061640</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, S., Liu, X., Yu, L., Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., Gong, P., Huang, W., Wang,
B., Yang, M., and Cheng, Y.: Climate response to introduction of the ESA CCI
land cover data to the NCAR CESM, Clim. Dynam., 56, 4109–4127,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05690-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-021-05690-3</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, S., Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., Wei, L., Wang, B., and Yu, L.: Contrasting
influences of biogeophysical and biogeochemical impacts of historical land
use on global economic inequality, Nat. Commun., 13, 2479,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30145-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-022-30145-6</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Loeb, N. G., Kato, S., Loukachine, K., Manalo-Smith, N., and Doelling, D.
R.: Angular Distribution Models for Top-of-Atmosphere Radiative Flux
Estimation from the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System Instrument
on the Terra Satellite. Part II: Validation, J. Atmos. Ocean Tech., 24,
564–584, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jtech1983.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jtech1983.1</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Loeb, N. G., Lyman, J. M., Johnson, G. C., Allan, R. P., Doelling, D. R.,
Wong, T., Soden, B. J., and Stephens, G. L.: Observed changes in
top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within
uncertainty, Nat. Geosci., 5, 110–113, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1375" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo1375</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Loeb, N. G., Doelling, D. R., Wang, H., Su, W., Nguyen, C., Corbett, J. G.,
Liang, L., Mitrescu, C., Rose, F. G., and Kato, S.: Clouds and the Earth's
Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF)
Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) Edition-4.0 Data Product, J. Climate, 31, 895–918,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0208.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jcli-d-17-0208.1</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lothon, M., Campistron, B., Chong, M., Couvreux, F., Guichard, F., Rio, C.,
and Williams, E.: Life Cycle of a Mesoscale Circular Gust Front Observed by
a C-Band Doppler Radar in West Africa, Mon. Weather Rev., 139, 1370–1388,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3480.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2010MWR3480.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lun, Y., Liu, L., Cheng, L., Li, X., Li, H., and Xu, Z.: Assessment of GCMs
simulation performance for precipitation and temperature from CMIP5 to CMIP6
over the Tibetan Plateau, Int. J. Climatol., 41, 3994–4018,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7055" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.7055</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ma, J., Wang, H., and Fan, K.: Dynamic downscaling of summer precipitation
prediction over China in 1998 using WRF and CCSM4, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 32,
577–584, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-014-4143-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00376-014-4143-y</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mehran, A., AghaKouchak, A., and Phillips, T. J.: Evaluation of CMIP5
continental precipitation simulations relative to satellite-based
gauge-adjusted observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 1695–1707,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013jd021152" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013jd021152</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Miralles, D. G., Gentine, P., Seneviratne, S. I., and Teuling, A. J.:
Land-atmospheric feedbacks during droughts and heatwaves: state of the
science and current challenges, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1436, 19–35,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13912" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/nyas.13912</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mueller, B. and Seneviratne, S. I.: Systematic land climate and
evapotranspiration biases in CMIP5 simulations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41,
128–134, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058055" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013GL058055</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Na, Y., Fu, Q., and Kodama, C.: Precipitation Probability and Its Future
Changes From a Global Cloud-Resolving Model and CMIP6 Simulations, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD031926, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031926" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019jd031926</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Novick, K. A., Biederman, J. A., Desai, A. R., Litvak, M. E., Moore, D. J.
P., Scott, R. L., and Torn, M. S.: The AmeriFlux network: A coalition of the
willing, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 249, 444–456,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.10.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.10.009</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>O'Brien, T. A., Collins, W. D., Kashinath, K., Rübel, O., Byna, S., Gu,
J., Krishnan, H., and Ullrich, P. A.: Resolution dependence of precipitation
statistical fidelity in hindcast simulations, J. Adv. Model Earth Sy., 8,
976–990, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ms000671" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016ms000671</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Oleson, K. W., Lawrence, D. M., Bonan, G. B., Flanner, M. G., Kluzek, E.,
Lawrence, P. J., Levis, S., Swenson, S. C., Thornton, P. E., Dai, A.,
Decker, M., Dickinson, R., Feddema, J., Heald, C. L., Hoffman, F., Lamarque,
J.-F., Mahowald, N., Niu, G.-Y., Qian, T., Randerson, J., Running, S.,
Sakaguchi, K., Slater, A., Stockli, R., Wang, A., Yang, Z.-L., and Zeng, X.:
Technical description of version 4.0 of the Community Land Model (CLM), NCAR
Technical Note NCAR/TN-478<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>STR, 257 pp., 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. D., and Joshi, M.: Recent United Kingdom and global
temperature variations, Weather, 72, 323–329, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.3174" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wea.3174</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pielke, R. A.: Influence of the spatial distribution of vegetation and soils
on the prediction of cumulus Convective rainfall, Rev. Geophys., 39,
151–177, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999rg000072" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999rg000072</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pitman, A. J.: The evolution of, and revolution in, land surface schemes
designed for climate models, Int. J. Climatol., 23, 479–510,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.893" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.893</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rieck, M., Hohenegger, C., and van Heerwaarden, C. C.: The Influence of Land
Surface Heterogeneities on Cloud Size Development, Mon. Weather Rev., 142,
3830–3846, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-13-00354.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/mwr-d-13-00354.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rochetin, N., Couvreux, F., and Guichard, F.: Morphology of breeze
circulations induced by surface flux heterogeneities and their impact on
convection initiation, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 463–478,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2935" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2935</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rodell, M., Houser, P. R., Jambor, U., Gottschalck, J., Mitchell, K., Meng,
C. J., Arsenault, K., Cosgrove, B., Radakovich, J., Bosilovich, M., Entin,
J. K., Walker, J. P., Lohmann, D., and Toll, D.: The Global Land Data
Assimilation System, B. Am. Meteorol. Roc., 85, 381–394,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-85-3-381" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/bams-85-3-381</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rotenberg, E. and Yakir, D.: Contribution of semi-arid forests to the
climate system, Science, 327, 451–454, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1179998" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1179998</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P., Behringer,
D., Hou, Y.-T., Chuang, H.-Y., Iredell, M., Ek, M., Meng, J., Yang, R.,
Mendez, M. P., van den Dool, H., Zhang, Q., Wang, W., Chen, M., and Becker,
E.: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2, J. Climate, 27, 2185–2208,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00823.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jcli-d-12-00823.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stone, D. A., Risser, M. D., Angélil, O. M., Wehner, M. F., Cholia, S.,
Keen, N., Krishnan, H., O'Brien, T. A., and Collins, W. D.: A basis set for
exploration of sensitivity to prescribed ocean conditions for estimating
human contributions to extreme weather in CAM5.1-1degree, Weather and
Climate Extremes, 19, 10–19, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2017.12.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.wace.2017.12.003</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Su, F., Duan, X., Chen, D., Hao, Z., and Cuo, L.: Evaluation of the Global
Climate Models in the CMIP5 over the Tibetan Plateau, J. Climate, 26,
3187–3208, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00321.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jcli-d-12-00321.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sun, Q., Miao, C., Duan, Q., Ashouri, H., Sorooshian, S., and Hsu, K. L.: A
Review of Global Precipitation Data Sets: Data Sources, Estimation, and
Intercomparisons, Rev. Geophys., 56, 79–107, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017rg000574" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017rg000574</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sun, W., Li, L., and Wang, B.: Reducing the biases in shortwave cloud
radiative forcing in tropical and subtropical regions from the perspective
of boundary layer processes, Sci. China Earth Sci., 59, 1427–1439,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-016-5290-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11430-016-5290-z</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sun, W., Wang, B., Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., Han, Y., Wang, X., and Yang, M.:
Parameterizing Subgrid Variations of Land Surface Heat Fluxes to the
Atmosphere Improves Boreal Summer Land Precipitation Simulation with the
NCAR CESM1.2, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL090715, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl090715" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020gl090715</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tang, Y., Wen, X., Sun, X., and Wang, H.: Interannual variation of the Bowen
ratio in a subtropical coniferous plantation in southeast China, 2003–2012,
PLoS One, 9, e88267, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088267" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pone.0088267</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Taylor, C. M., Parker, D. J., and Harris, P. P.: An observational case study
of mesoscale atmospheric circulations induced by soil moisture, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 34, L15801, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gl030572" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007gl030572</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Waliser, D. E., Moncrieff, M. W., Burridge, D., Fink, A. H., and Yuter, S.:
The “year” of tropical convection (May 2008–April 2010): Climate
variability and weather highlights, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 1189–1218,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011bams3095.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2011bams3095.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., and Craig, G. C.: Stochastic convective
parameterization improving the simulation of tropical precipitation
variability in the NCAR CAM5, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6612-6619,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl069818" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016gl069818</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., and He, Y. J.: Simulation of Precipitation Extremes
Using a Stochastic Convective Parameterization in the NCAR CAM5 Under
Different Resolutions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122,  12875–12891,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jd026901" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017jd026901</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., and Jiang, Y.: Linking Stochasticity of Convection
to Large-Scale Vertical Velocity to Improve Indian Summer Monsoon Simulation
in the NCAR CAM5, J. Climate, 31, 6985–7002, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0785.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jcli-d-17-0785.1</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Xia, W., Liu, X., Xie, S., Lin, W., Tang, Q., Ma, H.-Y., Jiang,
Y., Wang, B., and Zhang, G. J.: Disproportionate control on aerosol burden
by light rain, Nat. Geosci., 14, 72–76, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00675-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41561-020-00675-z</ext-link>,
2021a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., Xie, S., Lin, W., Craig, G. C., Tang, Q., and Ma, H.-Y.: Effects of coupling a stochastic convective parameterization with the Zhang–McFarlane scheme on precipitation simulation in the DOE E3SMv1.0 atmosphere model, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1575–1593, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1575-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-14-1575-2021</ext-link>, 2021b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wei, L., Wang, Y., Liu, S., Zhang, G. J., and Wang, B.: Distinct roles of
land cover in regulating spatial variabilities of temperature responses to
radiative effects of aerosols and clouds, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 124070,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3f04" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/ac3f04</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Xia, Y., Hao, Z., Shi, C., Li, Y., Meng, J., Xu, T., Wu, X., and Zhang, B.:
Regional and Global Land Data Assimilation Systems: Innovations, Challenges,
and Prospects, J. Meteorol. Res.-Prc., 33, 159–189,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-019-8172-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s13351-019-8172-4</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yin, M., Wang, Y., and Sun, W.:  Climate Impacts of Parameterizing Subgrid Partitioning of Land Surface Heat Fluxes to the Atmosphere with the NCAR CESM1.2,  Zenodo [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6606418" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.6606418</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yu, R., Li, J., Zhang, Y., and Chen, H.: Improvement of rainfall simulation
on the steep edge of the Tibetan Plateau by using a finite-difference
transport scheme in CAM5, Clim. Dynam., 45, 2937–2948,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2515-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-015-2515-3</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yue, S., Yang, K., Lu, H., Zhou, X., Chen, D., and Guo, W.: Representation
of Stony Surface-Atmosphere Interactions in WRF Reduces Cold and Wet Biases
for the Southern Tibetan Plateau, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2021JD035291,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jd035291" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2021jd035291</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zaitchik, B. F., Rodell, M., and Olivera, F.: Evaluation of the Global Land
Data Assimilation System using global river discharge data and a
source-to-sink routing scheme, Water Resour. Res., 46, W06507,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009wr007811" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009wr007811</ext-link>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhou, X., Yang, K., Beljaars, A., Li, H., Lin, C., Huang, B., and Wang, Y.:
Dynamical impact of parameterized turbulent orographic form drag on the
simulation of winter precipitation over the western Tibetan Plateau, Clim.
Dynam., 53, 707–720, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04628-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-019-04628-0</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhou, X., Yang, K., Ouyang, L., Wang, Y., Jiang, Y., Li, X., Chen, D., and
Prein, A.: Added value of kilometer-scale modeling over the third pole
region: a CORDEX-CPTP pilot study, Clim. Dynam., 57, 1673–1687,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05653-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-021-05653-8</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhu, Y.-Y. and Yang, S.: Evaluation of CMIP6 for historical temperature and
precipitation over the Tibetan Plateau and its comparison with CMIP5, Adv.
Clim. Change Res., 11, 239–251, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2020.08.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.accre.2020.08.001</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Climate impacts of parameterizing subgrid variation and partitioning of land surface heat fluxes to the  atmosphere with the NCAR CESM1.2</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Beaudoing, H.,   Rodell, M., and NASA/GSFC/HSL:  GLDAS Noah Land Surface Model L4 monthly 1.0 x 1.0 degree V2.1, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) [data set],  <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/LWTYSMP3VM5Z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/LWTYSMP3VM5Z</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
CESM Software Engineering Group: CESM User’s Guide (CESM1.2 Release Series User’s Guide), <a href="https://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.2/cesm/doc/usersguide/x290.html#download_ccsm_code" target="_blank"/>, last access: 21 December 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Chakraborty, T. and Lee, X.: Land Cover Regulates the Spatial Variability of
Temperature Response to the Direct Radiative Effect of Aerosols, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 46, 8995–9003, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl083812" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl083812</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Dai, A.: Precipitation Characteristics in Eighteen Coupled Climate Models,
J. Climate, 19, 4605–4630, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3884.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3884.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Duveiller, G., Forzieri, G., Robertson, E., Li, W., Georgievski, G., Lawrence, P., Wiltshire, A., Ciais, P., Pongratz, J., Sitch, S., Arneth, A., and Cescatti, A.: Biophysics and vegetation cover change: a process-based evaluation framework for confronting land surface models with satellite observations, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 1265–1279, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1265-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1265-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Findell, K. L., Gentine, P., Lintner, B. R., and Kerr, C.: Probability of
afternoon precipitation in eastern United States and Mexico enhanced by high
evaporation, Nat. Geosci., 4, 434–439, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1174" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1174</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Forzieri, G., Duveiller, G., Georgievski, G., Li, W., Robertson, E., Kautz,
M., Lawrence, P., Garcia San Martin, L., Anthoni, P., Ciais, P., Pongratz,
J., Sitch, S., Wiltshire, A., Arneth, A., and Cescatti, A.: Evaluating the
Interplay Between Biophysical Processes and Leaf Area Changes in Land
Surface Models, J. Adv. Model Earth Sy., 10, 1102–1126,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2018MS001284" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2018MS001284</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Forzieri, G., Miralles, D. G., Ciais, P., Alkama, R., Ryu, Y., Duveiller,
G., Zhang, K., Robertson, E., Kautz, M., Martens, B., Jiang, C., Arneth, A.,
Georgievski, G., Li, W., Ceccherini, G., Anthoni, P., Lawrence, P.,
Wiltshire, A., Pongratz, J., Piao, S., Sitch, S., Goll, D. S., Arora, V. K.,
Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Kato, E., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Tian, H.,
Friedlingstein, P., and Cescatti, A.: Increased control of vegetation on
global terrestrial energy fluxes, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 356–362,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0717-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0717-0</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Gao, Y., Leung, L. R., Zhao, C., and Hagos, S.: Sensitivity of U.S. summer
precipitation to model resolution and convective parameterizations across
gray zone resolutions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 2714–2733,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jd025896" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jd025896</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Gelaro, R., McCarty, W., Suarez, M. J., Todling, R., Molod, A., Takacs, L.,
Randles, C., Darmenov, A., Bosilovich, M. G., Reichle, R., Wargan, K., Coy,
L., Cullather, R., Draper, C., Akella, S., Buchard, V., Conaty, A., da
Silva, A., Gu, W., Kim, G. K., Koster, R., Lucchesi, R., Merkova, D.,
Nielsen, J. E., Partyka, G., Pawson, S., Putman, W., Rienecker, M.,
Schubert, S. D., Sienkiewicz, M., and Zhao, B.: The Modern-Era Retrospective
Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2), J. Climate, 30,
5419–5454, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0758.1</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO): MERRA-2 instM_3d_asm_Np: 3d,Monthly mean,Instantaneous,Pressure-Level,Assimilation,Assimilated Meteorological Fields V5.12.4, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/2E096JV59PK7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/2E096JV59PK7</a>, 2015a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO):  MERRA-2 tavgM_2d_flx_Nx: 2d,Monthly mean,Time-Averaged,Single-Level,Assimilation,Surface Flux Diagnostics V5.12.4, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) [data set],  <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/0JRLVL8YV2Y4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/0JRLVL8YV2Y4</a>, 2015b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Hao, D., Bisht, G., Gu, Y., Lee, W.-L., Liou, K.-N., and Leung, L. R.: A parameterization of sub-grid topographical effects on solar radiation in the E3SM Land Model (version 1.0): implementation and evaluation over the Tibetan Plateau, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6273–6289, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6273-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6273-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Hao, D., Bisht, G., Huang, M., Ma, P. L., Tesfa, T., Lee, W. L., Gu, Y., and
Leung, L. R.: Impacts of Sub-Grid Topographic Representations on Surface
Energy Balance and Boundary Conditions in the E3SM Land Model: A Case Study
in Sierra Nevada, J. Adv. Model Earth Sy., 14, 4, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ms002862" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ms002862</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Hao, Z., Hao, F., Xia, Y., Singh, V. P., Hong, Y., Shen, X., and Ouyang, W.:
A Statistical Method for Categorical Drought Prediction Based on NLDAS-2, J.
Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 55, 1049–1061, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-15-0200.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-15-0200.1</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P., and Lister, D.: Version 4 of the CRU
TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset, Sci. Data,
7, 109, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Hartmann, D. L.: Global Physical Climatology, Academic Press, San Diego, America, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Hinkelman, L. M.: The Global Radiative Energy Budget in MERRA and MERRA-2:
Evaluation with Respect to CERES EBAF Data, J. Climate, 32, 1973–1994,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-18-0445.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-18-0445.1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Huffman, G. J., Dan, B., Bolvin, A., Hsu, K., Joyce, R., and Xie, P.: Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM (IMERG), version 4.4. NASA's Precipitation Processing Center, <a href="ftp://arthurhou.pps.eosdis.nasa.gov/gpmdata/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 21 December 2022), 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Jiménez, C., Prigent, C., Mueller, B., Seneviratne, S. I., McCabe, M.
F., Wood, E. F., Rossow, W. B., Balsamo, G., Betts, A. K., Dirmeyer, P. A.,
Fisher, J. B., Jung, M., Kanamitsu, M., Reichle, R. H., Reichstein, M.,
Rodell, M., Sheffield, J., Tu, K., and Wang, K.: Global intercomparison of
12 land surface heat flux estimates, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D02102,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010jd014545" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010jd014545</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Klein, S. A. and Hartmann, D. L.: The Seasonal Cycle of Low Stratiform
Clouds, J. Climate, 6, 1587–1606, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006&lt;1587:TSCOLS&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1993)006&lt;1587:TSCOLS&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Laloyaux, P., Balmaseda, M., Dee, D., Mogensen, K., and Janssen, P.: A
coupled data assimilation system for climate reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor.
Soc., 142, 65–78, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2629" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2629</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Lee, J. M., Zhang, Y., and Klein, S. A.: The effect of land surface
heterogeneity and background wind on shallow cumulus clouds and the
transition to deeper convection, J. Atmos. Sci., 76, 401–419,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0196.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-18-0196.1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Lee, W. L., Liou, K. N., Wang, C. c., Gu, Y., Hsu, H. H., and Li, J. L. F.:
Impact of 3-D Radiation-Topography Interactions on Surface Temperature and
Energy Budget Over the Tibetan Plateau in Winter, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
124, 1537–1549, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd029592" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd029592</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Lee, X., Goulden, M. L., Hollinger, D. Y., Barr, A., Black, T. A., Bohrer,
G., Bracho, R., Drake, B., Goldstein, A., Gu, L., Katul, G., Kolb, T., Law,
B. E., Margolis, H., Meyers, T., Monson, R., Munger, W., Oren, R., Paw, U.
K., Richardson, A. D., Schmid, H. P., Staebler, R., Wofsy, S., and Zhao, L.:
Observed increase in local cooling effect of deforestation at higher
latitudes, Nature, 479, 384–387, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10588" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10588</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Liu, S., Chen, M., and Zhuang, Q.: Aerosol effects on global land surface
energy fluxes during 2003–2010, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 7875–7881,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl061640" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl061640</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Liu, S., Liu, X., Yu, L., Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., Gong, P., Huang, W., Wang,
B., Yang, M., and Cheng, Y.: Climate response to introduction of the ESA CCI
land cover data to the NCAR CESM, Clim. Dynam., 56, 4109–4127,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05690-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05690-3</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Liu, S., Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., Wei, L., Wang, B., and Yu, L.: Contrasting
influences of biogeophysical and biogeochemical impacts of historical land
use on global economic inequality, Nat. Commun., 13, 2479,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30145-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30145-6</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Loeb, N. G., Kato, S., Loukachine, K., Manalo-Smith, N., and Doelling, D.
R.: Angular Distribution Models for Top-of-Atmosphere Radiative Flux
Estimation from the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System Instrument
on the Terra Satellite. Part II: Validation, J. Atmos. Ocean Tech., 24,
564–584, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jtech1983.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jtech1983.1</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Loeb, N. G., Lyman, J. M., Johnson, G. C., Allan, R. P., Doelling, D. R.,
Wong, T., Soden, B. J., and Stephens, G. L.: Observed changes in
top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within
uncertainty, Nat. Geosci., 5, 110–113, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1375" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1375</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Loeb, N. G., Doelling, D. R., Wang, H., Su, W., Nguyen, C., Corbett, J. G.,
Liang, L., Mitrescu, C., Rose, F. G., and Kato, S.: Clouds and the Earth's
Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF)
Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) Edition-4.0 Data Product, J. Climate, 31, 895–918,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0208.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0208.1</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Lothon, M., Campistron, B., Chong, M., Couvreux, F., Guichard, F., Rio, C.,
and Williams, E.: Life Cycle of a Mesoscale Circular Gust Front Observed by
a C-Band Doppler Radar in West Africa, Mon. Weather Rev., 139, 1370–1388,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3480.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2010MWR3480.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Lun, Y., Liu, L., Cheng, L., Li, X., Li, H., and Xu, Z.: Assessment of GCMs
simulation performance for precipitation and temperature from CMIP5 to CMIP6
over the Tibetan Plateau, Int. J. Climatol., 41, 3994–4018,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7055" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7055</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Ma, J., Wang, H., and Fan, K.: Dynamic downscaling of summer precipitation
prediction over China in 1998 using WRF and CCSM4, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 32,
577–584, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-014-4143-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-014-4143-y</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Mehran, A., AghaKouchak, A., and Phillips, T. J.: Evaluation of CMIP5
continental precipitation simulations relative to satellite-based
gauge-adjusted observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 1695–1707,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013jd021152" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013jd021152</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Miralles, D. G., Gentine, P., Seneviratne, S. I., and Teuling, A. J.:
Land-atmospheric feedbacks during droughts and heatwaves: state of the
science and current challenges, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci., 1436, 19–35,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13912" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13912</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Mueller, B. and Seneviratne, S. I.: Systematic land climate and
evapotranspiration biases in CMIP5 simulations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41,
128–134, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058055" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058055</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Na, Y., Fu, Q., and Kodama, C.: Precipitation Probability and Its Future
Changes From a Global Cloud-Resolving Model and CMIP6 Simulations, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, e2019JD031926, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031926" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031926</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Novick, K. A., Biederman, J. A., Desai, A. R., Litvak, M. E., Moore, D. J.
P., Scott, R. L., and Torn, M. S.: The AmeriFlux network: A coalition of the
willing, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 249, 444–456,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.10.009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.10.009</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>O'Brien, T. A., Collins, W. D., Kashinath, K., Rübel, O., Byna, S., Gu,
J., Krishnan, H., and Ullrich, P. A.: Resolution dependence of precipitation
statistical fidelity in hindcast simulations, J. Adv. Model Earth Sy., 8,
976–990, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ms000671" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ms000671</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Oleson, K. W., Lawrence, D. M., Bonan, G. B., Flanner, M. G., Kluzek, E.,
Lawrence, P. J., Levis, S., Swenson, S. C., Thornton, P. E., Dai, A.,
Decker, M., Dickinson, R., Feddema, J., Heald, C. L., Hoffman, F., Lamarque,
J.-F., Mahowald, N., Niu, G.-Y., Qian, T., Randerson, J., Running, S.,
Sakaguchi, K., Slater, A., Stockli, R., Wang, A., Yang, Z.-L., and Zeng, X.:
Technical description of version 4.0 of the Community Land Model (CLM), NCAR
Technical Note NCAR/TN-478+STR, 257 pp., 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. D., and Joshi, M.: Recent United Kingdom and global
temperature variations, Weather, 72, 323–329, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.3174" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.3174</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Pielke, R. A.: Influence of the spatial distribution of vegetation and soils
on the prediction of cumulus Convective rainfall, Rev. Geophys., 39,
151–177, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999rg000072" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999rg000072</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Pitman, A. J.: The evolution of, and revolution in, land surface schemes
designed for climate models, Int. J. Climatol., 23, 479–510,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.893" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.893</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Rieck, M., Hohenegger, C., and van Heerwaarden, C. C.: The Influence of Land
Surface Heterogeneities on Cloud Size Development, Mon. Weather Rev., 142,
3830–3846, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-13-00354.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-13-00354.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Rochetin, N., Couvreux, F., and Guichard, F.: Morphology of breeze
circulations induced by surface flux heterogeneities and their impact on
convection initiation, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 463–478,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2935" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2935</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Rodell, M., Houser, P. R., Jambor, U., Gottschalck, J., Mitchell, K., Meng,
C. J., Arsenault, K., Cosgrove, B., Radakovich, J., Bosilovich, M., Entin,
J. K., Walker, J. P., Lohmann, D., and Toll, D.: The Global Land Data
Assimilation System, B. Am. Meteorol. Roc., 85, 381–394,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-85-3-381" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-85-3-381</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Rotenberg, E. and Yakir, D.: Contribution of semi-arid forests to the
climate system, Science, 327, 451–454, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1179998" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1179998</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Saha, S., Moorthi, S., Wu, X., Wang, J., Nadiga, S., Tripp, P., Behringer,
D., Hou, Y.-T., Chuang, H.-Y., Iredell, M., Ek, M., Meng, J., Yang, R.,
Mendez, M. P., van den Dool, H., Zhang, Q., Wang, W., Chen, M., and Becker,
E.: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2, J. Climate, 27, 2185–2208,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00823.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00823.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Stone, D. A., Risser, M. D., Angélil, O. M., Wehner, M. F., Cholia, S.,
Keen, N., Krishnan, H., O'Brien, T. A., and Collins, W. D.: A basis set for
exploration of sensitivity to prescribed ocean conditions for estimating
human contributions to extreme weather in CAM5.1-1degree, Weather and
Climate Extremes, 19, 10–19, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2017.12.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2017.12.003</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Su, F., Duan, X., Chen, D., Hao, Z., and Cuo, L.: Evaluation of the Global
Climate Models in the CMIP5 over the Tibetan Plateau, J. Climate, 26,
3187–3208, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00321.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-12-00321.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Sun, Q., Miao, C., Duan, Q., Ashouri, H., Sorooshian, S., and Hsu, K. L.: A
Review of Global Precipitation Data Sets: Data Sources, Estimation, and
Intercomparisons, Rev. Geophys., 56, 79–107, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017rg000574" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017rg000574</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Sun, W., Li, L., and Wang, B.: Reducing the biases in shortwave cloud
radiative forcing in tropical and subtropical regions from the perspective
of boundary layer processes, Sci. China Earth Sci., 59, 1427–1439,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-016-5290-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-016-5290-z</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Sun, W., Wang, B., Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., Han, Y., Wang, X., and Yang, M.:
Parameterizing Subgrid Variations of Land Surface Heat Fluxes to the
Atmosphere Improves Boreal Summer Land Precipitation Simulation with the
NCAR CESM1.2, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL090715, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl090715" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl090715</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Tang, Y., Wen, X., Sun, X., and Wang, H.: Interannual variation of the Bowen
ratio in a subtropical coniferous plantation in southeast China, 2003–2012,
PLoS One, 9, e88267, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088267" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088267</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Taylor, C. M., Parker, D. J., and Harris, P. P.: An observational case study
of mesoscale atmospheric circulations induced by soil moisture, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 34, L15801, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gl030572" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gl030572</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Waliser, D. E., Moncrieff, M. W., Burridge, D., Fink, A. H., and Yuter, S.:
The “year” of tropical convection (May 2008–April 2010): Climate
variability and weather highlights, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 1189–1218,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011bams3095.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2011bams3095.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., and Craig, G. C.: Stochastic convective
parameterization improving the simulation of tropical precipitation
variability in the NCAR CAM5, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6612-6619,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl069818" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl069818</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., and He, Y. J.: Simulation of Precipitation Extremes
Using a Stochastic Convective Parameterization in the NCAR CAM5 Under
Different Resolutions, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122,  12875–12891,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jd026901" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jd026901</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., and Jiang, Y.: Linking Stochasticity of Convection
to Large-Scale Vertical Velocity to Improve Indian Summer Monsoon Simulation
in the NCAR CAM5, J. Climate, 31, 6985–7002, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0785.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0785.1</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Xia, W., Liu, X., Xie, S., Lin, W., Tang, Q., Ma, H.-Y., Jiang,
Y., Wang, B., and Zhang, G. J.: Disproportionate control on aerosol burden
by light rain, Nat. Geosci., 14, 72–76, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00675-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00675-z</a>,
2021a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Zhang, G. J., Xie, S., Lin, W., Craig, G. C., Tang, Q., and Ma, H.-Y.: Effects of coupling a stochastic convective parameterization with the Zhang–McFarlane scheme on precipitation simulation in the DOE E3SMv1.0 atmosphere model, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1575–1593, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1575-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1575-2021</a>, 2021b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Wei, L., Wang, Y., Liu, S., Zhang, G. J., and Wang, B.: Distinct roles of
land cover in regulating spatial variabilities of temperature responses to
radiative effects of aerosols and clouds, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 124070,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3f04" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3f04</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Xia, Y., Hao, Z., Shi, C., Li, Y., Meng, J., Xu, T., Wu, X., and Zhang, B.:
Regional and Global Land Data Assimilation Systems: Innovations, Challenges,
and Prospects, J. Meteorol. Res.-Prc., 33, 159–189,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-019-8172-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-019-8172-4</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Yin, M., Wang, Y., and Sun, W.:  Climate Impacts of Parameterizing Subgrid Partitioning of Land Surface Heat Fluxes to the Atmosphere with the NCAR CESM1.2,  Zenodo [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6606418" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6606418</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Yu, R., Li, J., Zhang, Y., and Chen, H.: Improvement of rainfall simulation
on the steep edge of the Tibetan Plateau by using a finite-difference
transport scheme in CAM5, Clim. Dynam., 45, 2937–2948,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2515-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2515-3</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Yue, S., Yang, K., Lu, H., Zhou, X., Chen, D., and Guo, W.: Representation
of Stony Surface-Atmosphere Interactions in WRF Reduces Cold and Wet Biases
for the Southern Tibetan Plateau, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2021JD035291,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jd035291" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2021jd035291</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Zaitchik, B. F., Rodell, M., and Olivera, F.: Evaluation of the Global Land
Data Assimilation System using global river discharge data and a
source-to-sink routing scheme, Water Resour. Res., 46, W06507,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009wr007811" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009wr007811</a>, 2010.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Zhou, X., Yang, K., Beljaars, A., Li, H., Lin, C., Huang, B., and Wang, Y.:
Dynamical impact of parameterized turbulent orographic form drag on the
simulation of winter precipitation over the western Tibetan Plateau, Clim.
Dynam., 53, 707–720, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04628-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04628-0</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Zhou, X., Yang, K., Ouyang, L., Wang, Y., Jiang, Y., Li, X., Chen, D., and
Prein, A.: Added value of kilometer-scale modeling over the third pole
region: a CORDEX-CPTP pilot study, Clim. Dynam., 57, 1673–1687,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05653-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05653-8</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Zhu, Y.-Y. and Yang, S.: Evaluation of CMIP6 for historical temperature and
precipitation over the Tibetan Plateau and its comparison with CMIP5, Adv.
Clim. Change Res., 11, 239–251, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2020.08.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2020.08.001</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
