The role of aerodynamic roughness for runoff and snow evaporation in land-surface schemes—comparison of uncoupled and coupled simulations

This paper describes the impact of changes in aerodynamic roughness length for snow-covered surfaces in a land-surface scheme (LSS) on simulated runoff and evapotranspiration. The study was undertaken as the LSS in question produced widely divergent results in runoff, depending on whether it was use...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Global and planetary change 2003-07, Vol.38 (1), p.93-99
Hauptverfasser: Samuelsson, Patrick, Bringfelt, Björn, Graham, L.Phil
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 99
container_issue 1
container_start_page 93
container_title Global and planetary change
container_volume 38
creator Samuelsson, Patrick
Bringfelt, Björn
Graham, L.Phil
description This paper describes the impact of changes in aerodynamic roughness length for snow-covered surfaces in a land-surface scheme (LSS) on simulated runoff and evapotranspiration. The study was undertaken as the LSS in question produced widely divergent results in runoff, depending on whether it was used in uncoupled one-dimensional simulations forced by observations from the PILPS2e project, or in three-dimensional simulations coupled to an atmospheric model. The LSS was applied in two versions (LSS1 and LSS2) for both uncoupled and coupled simulations, where the only difference between the two versions was in the roughness length of latent heat used over snow-covered surfaces. The results show that feedback mechanisms in temperature and humidity in the coupled simulations were able to compensate for deficiencies in parameterizations and therefore, LSS1 and LSS2 yielded similar runoff results in this case. Since such feedback mechanisms are absent in uncoupled simulations, the two LSS versions produced very different runoff results in the uncoupled case. However, the magnitude of these feedback mechanisms is small compared to normal variability in temperature and humidity and cannot, by themselves, reveal any deficiencies in a parameterization. The conclusion we obtained is that the magnitude of the aerodynamic resistance is important to correctly simulate fluxes and runoff, but feedback mechanisms in a coupled model can partly compensate for errors.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00009-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19537035</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0921818103000092</els_id><sourcerecordid>19537035</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a361t-6fa991f380b631d800358da2ff2a1a66d30d1b996a6a26b5d1ff01717add1c613</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkL1OHDEURq0okbKBPAKSq4gUA742652pUIT4k5BSQGrLa1-zRjP2xHcHRJeelifMk2B2SVrc2Lo-90jfx9geiAMQoA-vRSehaaGFfaG-i3q6Rn5gM2gXstFKH31ks__IZ_aF6E4IWAgpZ-zpZoW85B55Dtxiyf4x2SG6OptuVwmJeMiFlynlUIHkOaX8wPHejrnYdcyJx8T7-tHQVIJ1yMmtcED6--fZ5WG0JVKFqn1KLk9jj36j-femOEz9RkS77FOwPeHXt3uH_To7vTm5aK5-nl-e_LhqrNKwbnSwXQdBtWKpFfhWCDVvvZUhSAtWa6-Eh2XXaaut1Mu5hxBqXFhY78FpUDvs29Y7lvx7QlqbIZLDvqbAPJGBbq4WVVrB-RZ0JRMVDGYscbDl0YAwr9WbTfXmtVcjlNlUb2TdO97uYU1xH7EYchGTQx8LurXxOb5jeAEQ8Y-f</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>19537035</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The role of aerodynamic roughness for runoff and snow evaporation in land-surface schemes—comparison of uncoupled and coupled simulations</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Samuelsson, Patrick ; Bringfelt, Björn ; Graham, L.Phil</creator><creatorcontrib>Samuelsson, Patrick ; Bringfelt, Björn ; Graham, L.Phil</creatorcontrib><description>This paper describes the impact of changes in aerodynamic roughness length for snow-covered surfaces in a land-surface scheme (LSS) on simulated runoff and evapotranspiration. The study was undertaken as the LSS in question produced widely divergent results in runoff, depending on whether it was used in uncoupled one-dimensional simulations forced by observations from the PILPS2e project, or in three-dimensional simulations coupled to an atmospheric model. The LSS was applied in two versions (LSS1 and LSS2) for both uncoupled and coupled simulations, where the only difference between the two versions was in the roughness length of latent heat used over snow-covered surfaces. The results show that feedback mechanisms in temperature and humidity in the coupled simulations were able to compensate for deficiencies in parameterizations and therefore, LSS1 and LSS2 yielded similar runoff results in this case. Since such feedback mechanisms are absent in uncoupled simulations, the two LSS versions produced very different runoff results in the uncoupled case. However, the magnitude of these feedback mechanisms is small compared to normal variability in temperature and humidity and cannot, by themselves, reveal any deficiencies in a parameterization. The conclusion we obtained is that the magnitude of the aerodynamic resistance is important to correctly simulate fluxes and runoff, but feedback mechanisms in a coupled model can partly compensate for errors.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0921-8181</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6364</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00009-2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>aerodynamic roughness ; Freshwater ; land-surface scheme ; PILPS ; runoff ; snow evaporation</subject><ispartof>Global and planetary change, 2003-07, Vol.38 (1), p.93-99</ispartof><rights>2003 Elsevier Science B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a361t-6fa991f380b631d800358da2ff2a1a66d30d1b996a6a26b5d1ff01717add1c613</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a361t-6fa991f380b631d800358da2ff2a1a66d30d1b996a6a26b5d1ff01717add1c613</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818103000092$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Samuelsson, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bringfelt, Björn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graham, L.Phil</creatorcontrib><title>The role of aerodynamic roughness for runoff and snow evaporation in land-surface schemes—comparison of uncoupled and coupled simulations</title><title>Global and planetary change</title><description>This paper describes the impact of changes in aerodynamic roughness length for snow-covered surfaces in a land-surface scheme (LSS) on simulated runoff and evapotranspiration. The study was undertaken as the LSS in question produced widely divergent results in runoff, depending on whether it was used in uncoupled one-dimensional simulations forced by observations from the PILPS2e project, or in three-dimensional simulations coupled to an atmospheric model. The LSS was applied in two versions (LSS1 and LSS2) for both uncoupled and coupled simulations, where the only difference between the two versions was in the roughness length of latent heat used over snow-covered surfaces. The results show that feedback mechanisms in temperature and humidity in the coupled simulations were able to compensate for deficiencies in parameterizations and therefore, LSS1 and LSS2 yielded similar runoff results in this case. Since such feedback mechanisms are absent in uncoupled simulations, the two LSS versions produced very different runoff results in the uncoupled case. However, the magnitude of these feedback mechanisms is small compared to normal variability in temperature and humidity and cannot, by themselves, reveal any deficiencies in a parameterization. The conclusion we obtained is that the magnitude of the aerodynamic resistance is important to correctly simulate fluxes and runoff, but feedback mechanisms in a coupled model can partly compensate for errors.</description><subject>aerodynamic roughness</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>land-surface scheme</subject><subject>PILPS</subject><subject>runoff</subject><subject>snow evaporation</subject><issn>0921-8181</issn><issn>1872-6364</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkL1OHDEURq0okbKBPAKSq4gUA742652pUIT4k5BSQGrLa1-zRjP2xHcHRJeelifMk2B2SVrc2Lo-90jfx9geiAMQoA-vRSehaaGFfaG-i3q6Rn5gM2gXstFKH31ks__IZ_aF6E4IWAgpZ-zpZoW85B55Dtxiyf4x2SG6OptuVwmJeMiFlynlUIHkOaX8wPHejrnYdcyJx8T7-tHQVIJ1yMmtcED6--fZ5WG0JVKFqn1KLk9jj36j-femOEz9RkS77FOwPeHXt3uH_To7vTm5aK5-nl-e_LhqrNKwbnSwXQdBtWKpFfhWCDVvvZUhSAtWa6-Eh2XXaaut1Mu5hxBqXFhY78FpUDvs29Y7lvx7QlqbIZLDvqbAPJGBbq4WVVrB-RZ0JRMVDGYscbDl0YAwr9WbTfXmtVcjlNlUb2TdO97uYU1xH7EYchGTQx8LurXxOb5jeAEQ8Y-f</recordid><startdate>20030701</startdate><enddate>20030701</enddate><creator>Samuelsson, Patrick</creator><creator>Bringfelt, Björn</creator><creator>Graham, L.Phil</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030701</creationdate><title>The role of aerodynamic roughness for runoff and snow evaporation in land-surface schemes—comparison of uncoupled and coupled simulations</title><author>Samuelsson, Patrick ; Bringfelt, Björn ; Graham, L.Phil</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a361t-6fa991f380b631d800358da2ff2a1a66d30d1b996a6a26b5d1ff01717add1c613</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>aerodynamic roughness</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>land-surface scheme</topic><topic>PILPS</topic><topic>runoff</topic><topic>snow evaporation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Samuelsson, Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bringfelt, Björn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graham, L.Phil</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Global and planetary change</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Samuelsson, Patrick</au><au>Bringfelt, Björn</au><au>Graham, L.Phil</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The role of aerodynamic roughness for runoff and snow evaporation in land-surface schemes—comparison of uncoupled and coupled simulations</atitle><jtitle>Global and planetary change</jtitle><date>2003-07-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>93</spage><epage>99</epage><pages>93-99</pages><issn>0921-8181</issn><eissn>1872-6364</eissn><abstract>This paper describes the impact of changes in aerodynamic roughness length for snow-covered surfaces in a land-surface scheme (LSS) on simulated runoff and evapotranspiration. The study was undertaken as the LSS in question produced widely divergent results in runoff, depending on whether it was used in uncoupled one-dimensional simulations forced by observations from the PILPS2e project, or in three-dimensional simulations coupled to an atmospheric model. The LSS was applied in two versions (LSS1 and LSS2) for both uncoupled and coupled simulations, where the only difference between the two versions was in the roughness length of latent heat used over snow-covered surfaces. The results show that feedback mechanisms in temperature and humidity in the coupled simulations were able to compensate for deficiencies in parameterizations and therefore, LSS1 and LSS2 yielded similar runoff results in this case. Since such feedback mechanisms are absent in uncoupled simulations, the two LSS versions produced very different runoff results in the uncoupled case. However, the magnitude of these feedback mechanisms is small compared to normal variability in temperature and humidity and cannot, by themselves, reveal any deficiencies in a parameterization. The conclusion we obtained is that the magnitude of the aerodynamic resistance is important to correctly simulate fluxes and runoff, but feedback mechanisms in a coupled model can partly compensate for errors.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00009-2</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0921-8181
ispartof Global and planetary change, 2003-07, Vol.38 (1), p.93-99
issn 0921-8181
1872-6364
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_19537035
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects aerodynamic roughness
Freshwater
land-surface scheme
PILPS
runoff
snow evaporation
title The role of aerodynamic roughness for runoff and snow evaporation in land-surface schemes—comparison of uncoupled and coupled simulations
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T17%3A57%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20role%20of%20aerodynamic%20roughness%20for%20runoff%20and%20snow%20evaporation%20in%20land-surface%20schemes%E2%80%94comparison%20of%20uncoupled%20and%20coupled%20simulations&rft.jtitle=Global%20and%20planetary%20change&rft.au=Samuelsson,%20Patrick&rft.date=2003-07-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=93&rft.epage=99&rft.pages=93-99&rft.issn=0921-8181&rft.eissn=1872-6364&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00009-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E19537035%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=19537035&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0921818103000092&rfr_iscdi=true