Status report from the Lead Centre for Surface Processes and Assimilation

1
Status report from the Lead Centre for Surface
Processes and Assimilation

• E. Rodríguez-Camino (INM)
• and
• S. Gollvik (SMHI)

2
Outline

• Next Workshop on Surface issues (4th)
• Activities at different centres
• Recent comparison and evaluation exercises
• New physiography proposal of evaluation
• Preferent fields of activity for the near future

3
3rd SRNWP Workshop on surface processes and
assimilation (Madrid, 22-24 Oct.2001) short
term recommendations

• Improvement of snow formulation
• Minimum number of predictive equations to
  describe snowpack evolution T, H, LW, Alb
• Improvement of the snow depth analysis
• Implementation of satellite based vegetation
  properties in climate files
• Review of definition and use of roughness length
  for heat and momentum

4
3rd SRNWP Workshop on surface processes and
assimilation (Madrid, 22-24 Oct.2001)medium-term
recommendations

• Increase the number of surface layers 4-5
• Separate energy budget for the canopy
• Review roughness length averaging for momentum
  exchange
• Variational approach to soil moisture
  assimilation
• Use of SYNOP soil temperature for validation
• Use of satellite data for validation
• Improvement of run-off formulation

5
4th workshop on surface processes and
assimilationSMHI, Norrköping around spring
2004 depending on HIRLAM internal arrangements.
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
RECENT COMPARISON AND EVALUATION EXERCISES

• Rhone AGGregation experiment (http//www.cnrm.me
  teo.fr/mc2/projects/rhoneagg/)
• ELDAS (http//www.knmi.nl/samenw/
  eldas/)

10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
ELDAS
Observations driving soil moisture correction
precipitation
evaporation
METEOSAT or MSG
radiation
Synops data
Land surface parameterization scheme
Soil moisture content
Soil moisture correction scheme
(sub)surface runoff
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
How to assess a new physiographic database?

• Introduce in a model and compare scores? ? Models
  are usually tuned to their climatic files! Some
  surface parameters are frequently tuned (e.g.,
  Zo) and others not (e.g., veg).
• Compare against point measurements? Good, but
  restricted to certain land uses and climatic
  conditions.
• Compare against other databases? Good, but which
  one is the truth
• Compare data and algorithms used to classify
  ecosystems?
• Locals have the best knowledge of landscape
  features ? Distribute the evaluation work!

30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
Preferent fields of activity for the near future

• Runoff description is rather crude (field
  capacity?). Use of soil moisture subgrid
  variability, subgrid topography, subgrid
  precipitation, ... ? RhoneAggr Exp.
• Soil moisture assimilation comparison of
  different methods ? ELDAS

33
Preferent fields of activity for the near future

• Winter conditions are still a source of problems
  for surface schemes. A better snow description
  needed a) ageing of albedo, density, emissivity,
  etc b) snow albedo in forests and complex
  orography c) effect of water retained by melting
  snow d) freezing and melting of soil moisture,
  lakes e) sea ice description.

34
Preferents fields of activity for the near future

• Substitution of land-use and look-up tables for
  vegetation parameters for directly measured (from
  satellite) vegetation parameters veg, LAI, alb.
  The frequency of updating should also be reviewed
  (1 week?)? ECOCLIMAP