Coupling an Advanced Land Surface–Hydrology Model with the Penn State–NCAR MM5 Modeling System. Part II: Preliminary Model Validation

A number of short-term numerical experiments conducted by the Penn State–NCAR fifth-generation Mesoscale Model (MM5) coupled with an advanced land surface model, alongside the simulations coupled with a simple slab model, are verified with observations. For clear sky day cases, the MM5 model gives reasonable estimates of radiation forcing at the surface with solar radiation being slightly overestimated probably due to the lack of aerosol treatment in the current MM5 radiation scheme. The improvements in the calculation of surface latent and sensible heat fluxes with the new land surface model (LSM) are very apparent, and more importantly, the new LSM captures the correct Bowen ratio. Evaporation obtained from the simple slab model is significantly lower than observations. Having time-varying soil moisture is important for capturing even short-term evolution of evaporation. Due to the more reasonable diurnal cycle of surface heat fluxes in the MM5–LSM, its near-surface temperature and humidity are closer to the FIFE observations. In particular, the MM5–slab model has a systematic warm bias in 2-m temperature. Both the slab model and the new LSM were coupled with the nonlocal Medium-Range Forecast model PBL parameterization scheme and they reproduced the depth of the morning surface inversion in the stable boundary layer well. The observed mixed layer in the late morning deepens faster than both models, despite the fact that both models have high bias in surface sensible heat fluxes. Presumably, such a rapid development of convective mixed layer is due to some effects induced by small-scale heterogeneity or large-scale advection that the MM5 failed to capture. Both surface models reasonably reproduce the daytime convective PBL growth and, in general, the temperature difference between the two models and observations is less than 2°. The simulations of two rainfall events are not conclusive. Both models produce a good forecast of rainfall for 24 June 1997 and have similar problems for the event of 4 July 1997, although the simulations with the new LSM have slightly improved results in some 3-h rainfall accumulations. It seems that the new LSM does not have unexpected influences in situations for which the land surface processes are secondary, but that it may have subtle, though complex, effects on the model behavior because of heterogeneity introduced by soil moisture, vegetation effects, and soil type, which are all lacking in the slab model.