Open AccessSummer Land–Atmosphere Coupling Strength in the United States: Comparison among Observations, Reanalysis Data, and Numerical Models
Author(s) -
Rui Mei,
Guiling Wang
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of hydrometeorology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.733
H-Index - 123
eISSN - 1525-755X
pISSN - 1525-7541
DOI - 10.1175/jhm-d-11-075.1
Subject(s) - atmosphere (unit) , climatology , environmental science , precipitation , climate model , atmospheric sciences , atmospheric model , coupling strength , coupling (piping) , climate change , meteorology , geology , physics , materials science , oceanography , condensed matter physics , metallurgy
This study examines the land–atmosphere coupling strength during summer over subregions of the United States based on observations [Climate Prediction Center (CPC)–Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC)], reanalysis data [North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) and NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR)], and models [Community Atmosphere Model, version 3 (CAM3)–Community Land Model, version 3 (CLM3) and CAM4–CLM4]. The probability density function of conditioned correlation between soil moisture and subsequent precipitation or surface temperature during the years of large precipitation anomalies is used as a measure for the coupling strength. There are three major findings: 1) among the eight subregions (classified by land cover types), the transition zone Great Plains (and, to a lesser extent, the Midwest and Southeast) are identified as hot spots for strong land–atmosphere coupling; 2) soil moisture–precipitation coupling is weaker than soil moisture–surface temperature coupling; and 3) the coupling strength is stronger in observational and reanalysis products than in the models examined, especially in CAM4–CLM4. The conditioned correlation analysis also indicates that the coupling strength in CAM4–CLM4 is weaker than in CAM3–CLM3, which is further supported by Global Land–Atmosphere Coupling Experiments1 (GLACE1)-type experiments and attributed to changes in CAM rather than modifications in CLM. Contrary to suggestions in previous studies, CAM–CLM models do not seem to overestimate the land–atmosphere coupling strength.