Upload
pearl
View
31
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Community Activities in Soil and Vegetation presented by A.Will (BTU Cottbus) and Aerosols and Clouds Swen Metzger (MPI Chemistry, Mainz). VEG3D is fully coupled with CLM version 4.0 and is being evaluated Main differences between TERRA_LM and VEG3D: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Community
Activities in Soil and Vegetation presented by A.Will (BTU Cottbus) and
Aerosols and Clouds Swen Metzger (MPI Chemistry, Mainz)
6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
longitude
47.5
48
48.5
49
49.5
lati
tud
e
300
350
400
450
500
525
550
575
600
650
1. Implementation of soil-vegetation model VEG3D
Cathérine Meißner and Gerd Schädler, University / Research Center KarlsruheVEG3D is fully coupled with CLM version 4.0 and is being evaluated
Main differences between TERRA_LM and VEG3D: Standard soil model of CLM (TERRA_LM) uses the surface temperature for transpiration calculation <-> VEG3D
has an explicit vegetation layer (“big leaf concept”) and simulates a vegetation temperature Runoff from soil layers is organized differently in both models Different formulation of water transport in soil and snow treatment
Additional parameters: Land use => taken from the DWD Pep Soil parameters => additional file in CLM code
First results: Annual evapotranspiration sum more homogenous in VEG3D which agrees better with
measurements (figures) Influence on annual preciptation in the range of 100 – 200 mm
6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
longitude
47.5
48
48.5
49
49.5
lati
tud
e
300
350
400
450
500
525
550
575
600
650
6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
longitude
47.5
48
48.5
49
49.5
lati
tud
e
300
350
400
450
500
525
550
575
600
650
OBSERVATIONS TERRA_ML Veg3D mm
Community Land Model
• http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/tss/clm/• community model• used in Community Climate System Model (CCSM)
Modules:• Biogeophysics• River routing• Carbon cycle (plant physiology)• Vegetation dynamics• C/N model (nutrients)• Dust, VOCs
2. Coupling of Climate Local Model and Community Land ModelReto Stöckli, Sonia Seneviratne, ETH Zurich
Uncertainties of input parameters and their impact
on CLM simulationsDoctor Thesis of Alexander Block
Chair for Environmental Meteorology, BTU Cottbus
Presented by Andreas Will
Motivation
DWD
GKSS
ECOCLIMAP
EFAI
Maximum LAI
Simulations
• LAI30: Leaf area index (LAI-LAI*0.3)• LAIECO: Leaf area index (ECOCLIMAP)• PLCOV: Plant cover (ECOCLIMAP)• ROOTDP: Root depth (ECOCLIMAP)• ALBVEG: Vegetation Albedo (ECOCLIMAP)• WL: Thermal Conductivity dependent on water content• RS: Stomata resistance• BK: Soiltype parameters• GKSS: Plant cover, LAI, soiltype• ECO: Plant cover, LAI, vegetation Albedo, root depth
Model setup
• Version LM3.19• ERA40 boundary data• 1 year (1987)• 1/6°, 193x217 GP, 20
vertical levels• 10 soil levels• dt=90s
LAN
UncertaintiesWLLAI30
Uncertainty soiltype parameters (BK): +/- 20%
Diff: ECOCLIMAP
H
Year
E
Year
T_2m
Year
T_2m
July
LAI30-Ref: yearly average
H E
H E
LAI30-Ref: May averageH E
Area mean differencesIBE (LAI30) SCA (LAI30)
Relative water content in LAI30Level 1, June Level 1, October
IBE SCA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
[%] [%]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
wl,root – water content of rooting zone
Evapotranspiration in Scandinavia
evaporation and transpiration counterbalance each other at soil water contents above 50%
BK-Ref: July averageH E
WL-Ref: yearly average
QS QL
H E
Diff: T2m yearly averageLAI30 BK
Diff: T2m monthly averageLAI30
May
BK
July
Uncertainty rangesT2m DTR
LAN IBE SCA H [W m-2] 0,8 2,6 1,1 E [W m-2] 1,4 3,0 0,8 QS [W m-2] 2,0 2,8 2,5 QL [W m-2] 2,0 2,0 3,1 T2m [K] 0,1 0,4 0,1 DTR [K] 0,4 1,0 0,7
LAN IBE SCA H [W m-2] 3,6 13,1 5,5 E [W m-2] 4,6 22,3 4,3 QS [W m-2] 7,4 6,2 20,4 QL [W m-2] 6,1 9,2 10,0 T2m [K] 0,7 1,5 0,9 DTR [K] 1,0 2,8 1,7
Yearly average Monthly average
Uncertainty ranges
Latent heat flux, Year Latent heat flux, June
Percentage of uncertainty range on absolute value