[1] We present the impact tests that preceded the most recent operational upgrades to the land surface model used in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) mesoscale Eta model, whose operational domain includes North America. These improvements consist of changes to the ''Noah'' land surface model (LSM) physics, most notable in the area of cold season processes. Results indicate improved performance in forecasting low-level temperature and humidity, with improvements to (or without affecting) the overall performance of the Eta model quantitative precipitation scores and upper air verification statistics. Remaining issues that directly affect the Noah LSM performance in the Eta model include physical parameterizations of radiation and clouds, which affect the amount of available energy at the surface, and stable boundary layer and surface layer processes, which affect surface turbulent heat fluxes and ultimately the surface energy budget.

[1] Results are presented from the multi-institution partnership to develop a real-time and retrospective North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS). NLDAS consists of (1) four land models executing in parallel in uncoupled mode, (2) common hourly surface forcing, and (3) common streamflow routing: all using a 1/8°grid over the continental United States. The initiative is largely sponsored by the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) Continental-Scale International Project (GCIP). As the overview for nine NLDAS papers, this paper describes and evaluates the 3-year NLDAS execution of 1 October 1996 to 30 September 1999, a period rich in observations for validation. The validation emphasizes (1) the land states, fluxes, and input forcing of four land models, (2) the application of new GCIP-sponsored products, and (3) a multiscale approach. The validation includes (1) mesoscale observing networks of land surface forcing, fluxes, and states, (2) regional snowpack measurements, (3) daily streamflow measurements, and (4) satellite-based retrievals of snow cover, land surface skin temperature (LST), and surface insolation. The results show substantial intermodel differences in surface evaporation and runoff (especially over nonsparse vegetation), soil moisture storage, snowpack, and LST. Owing to surprisingly large intermodel differences in aerodynamic conductance, intermodel differences in midday summer LST were unlike those expected from the intermodel differences in Bowen ratio. Last, anticipating future assimilation of LST, an NLDAS effort unique to this overview paper assesses geostationary-satellite-derived LST, determines the latter to be of good quality, and applies the latter to validate modeled LST.

[1] Results are presented from the second phase of the multiinstitution North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS-2) research partnership. In NLDAS, the Noah, Variable Infiltration Capacity, Sacramento Soil Moisture Accounting, and Mosaic land surface models (LSMs) are executed over the conterminous U.S. (CONUS) in realtime and retrospective modes. These runs support the drought analysis, monitoring and forecasting activities of the National Integrated Drought Information System, as well as efforts to monitor large-scale floods. NLDAS-2 builds upon the framework of the first phase of NLDAS (NLDAS-1) by increasing the accuracy and consistency of the surface forcing data, upgrading the land surface model code and parameters, and extending the study from a 3-year (1997)(1998)(1999)) to a 30-year (1979-2008) time window. As the first of two parts, this paper details the configuration of NLDAS-2, describes the upgrades to the forcing, parameters, and code of the four LSMs, and explores overall model-to-model comparisons of land surface water and energy flux and state variables over the CONUS. Focusing on model output rather than on observations, this study seeks to highlight the similarities and differences between models, and to assess changes in output from that seen in NLDAS-1. The second part of the two-part article focuses on the validation of model-simulated streamflow and evaporation against observations. The results depict a higher level of agreement among the four models over much of the CONUS than was found in the first phase of NLDAS. This is due, in part, to recent improvements in the parameters, code, and forcing of the NLDAS-2 LSMs that were initiated following NLDAS-1. However, large inter-model differences still exist in the northeast, Lake Superior, and western mountainous regions of the CONUS, which are associated with cold season processes. In addition, variations in the representation of sub-surface hydrology in the four LSMs lead to large differences in modeled evaporation and subsurface runoff. These issues are important targets for future research by the land surface modeling community. Finally, improvement from NLDAS-1 to NLDAS-2 is summarized by comparing the streamflow measured from U.S. Geological Survey stream gauges with that simulated by four NLDAS models over 961 small basins.

We tested four land surface parameterization schemes against long‐term (5 months) area‐averaged observations over the 15 km × 15 km First International Satellite Land Surface Climatology Project (ISLSCP) Field Experiment (FIFE) area. This approach proved to be very beneficial to understanding the performance and limitations of different land surface models. These four surface models, embodying different complexities of the evaporation/hydrology treatment, included the traditional simple bucket model, the simple water balance (SWB) model, the Oregon State University (OSU) model, and the simplified Simple Biosphere (SSiB) model. The bucket model overestimated the evaporation during wet periods, and this resulted in unrealistically large negative sensible heat fluxes. The SWB model, despite its simple evaporation formulation, simulated well the evaporation during wet periods, but it tended to underestimate the evaporation during dry periods. Overall, the OSU model ably simulated the observed seasonal and diurnal variation in evaporation, soil moisture, sensible heat flux, and surface skin temperature. The more complex SSiB model performed similarly to the OSU model. A range of sensitivity experiments showed that some complexity in the canopy resistance scheme is important in reducing both the overestimation of evaporation during wet periods and underestimation during dry periods. Properly parameterizing not only the effect of soil moisture stress but also other canopy resistance factors, such as the vapor pressure deficit stress, is critical for canopy resistance evaluation. An overly simple canopy resistance that includes only soil moisture stress is unable to simulate observed surface evaporation during dry periods. Given a modestly comprehensive time‐dependent canopy resistance treatment, a rather simple surface model such as the OSU model can provide good area‐averaged surface heat fluxes for mesoscale atmospheric models.